Sunday, December 17, 2017

ICYMI: Baby Hangover Edition (12/17)

Baby hangover is what you get when you go to a friends' Christmas party and stay out till 12:30, but your babies still follow their late-night feeding routine. I take no responsibility for any typos this morning.

How the Concept of Effectiveness Has Screwed Nonprofits and the People We Serve

Not about education, except that it's totally about education. How certain business tools of measurement pervert the central mission.

Plain Talk and School Reform


Rick Hess is reformy through and through, but he's always been willing to call out his colleagues when they screw up. This piece would have been welcome about 5-10 years ago, but you'll still agree with chunks of it now, particularly on the subject of who reformsters should be listening to.

Are Private Schools Immoral?

Or, if white progressives actually behaved as if they really believed their rhetoric about diversity and integration, would we still have a segregation problem?

Propoganda Behind Personalized Learning

http://www.longviewoneducation.org/propaganda-behind-personalised-learning/Applying Chomsky and Herman's filters to looking at the74. Less homework-like than it sounds.

Some Arizona Charter Schools Unlawfully Exclude and Deter Students

Yet another piece of evidence that charters do, in fact, cream, skim, and otherwise serve only the students they want to serve.

The Other Tech Bubble

I prefer the other title this piece appears under-- "Silicon Valley Techies Still Think They're the Good Guys. They're Not." This Wired piece doesn't address education directly, but its portrayal of Silicon Valley guys as entitled, arrogant jerks in a toxic culture will be recognizable to everyone who deals with edtech wizards.

Education Reform in Newark-- Facts

Mark Weber (Jersey Jazzman) and Bruce Baker (School Finance 101) have been crunching the Newark numbers, just in case the narrative of reformy triumph is not entirely accurate.Good thing, too.

Why We Need Hygge Classrooms in America

The meme has been all over, so Nancy Flanagan did some research.

Florida CRC One More Step Toward Centralization

Florida does this weird thing where they get out their constitution every so often and fiddle with it. As is often the case in Florida, we can see some examples of how privatizers grab power.

Saturday, December 16, 2017

Computers and Television

I'm going to spin off from this piece on Hackernoon, a blog sponsored by mabl, a tech conmpany based in Boston. The piece is written by Erik Vermeulen, a business and financial professor at Tilburg University, who bills himself as "professor, executive, entrepreneur." I picked this article, though there are plenty of others, because he doesn't have anything to say that lots of business-minded technophiles aren't also saying with increasing frequency. And they're all wrong.

Google search result for "computer disruption." Just sayin'



Professor Vermeulen will now demonstrate the standard features of this particular genre.

In "Education Disrupted (Finally!)" Vermeulen wants to argue about how education is being radically disrupted by technology. This, incidentally, is a realization he reached "last week." Welcome to the party, professor.

1) Writer is actually fairly uninformed about the field of education? Check:

And I have to admit that if you are active as a teacher or interested in education, you might think that education hasn’t changed much over the last few decades.

Nope. If you're active as a teacher, you're probably pretty tired of people who think education hasn't changed in the past decades, or century.

Of course, we are all making more use of digital technology. But many people think the “essence” of teaching (transferring knowledge, information and skills) hasn’t dramatically changed.

Nope. That's training, not education. If you think the essence of education is transferring knowledge, you may also believe the essence of music is just making the air vibrate, or the essence of kissing is just mashing your lips together.

2) Belief that education no longer needs to involve Knowing Stuff because we have technology to hold all the knowledge we'll ever need? Check.

In a digital age, education is less about students acquiring knowledge.  

Actually, here in the US we are living through a fairly striking example of what happens when a large number of citizens and nominal leaders decide that Knowing Stuff is really unnecessary. So far, it hasn't been pretty. Pick and choose your "facts," or just make some up, and argue incessantly about which sources are believable or unfake without considering the measure of whether the source presents things that are verifiably correct.

No, we're living through a pretty dramatic demonstration that a solid background of knowledge is fairly critical in navigating the world like a responsible human being.

Instead, the classroom of the future focuses on offering an experience that builds the capacity for living and working in a world of artificial intelligence, connected machines and automation. And such an experience can only be “successful” if it spurs curiosity, unleashes creativity, and demands teamwork

We'll come back to that bit about AI in a minute. For now, note that Vermeulen demonstrates his ignorance of the education world by suggesting that spurring curiosity, unleashing creativity, and demanding teamwork are somehow bold new ideas that teachers haven't been talking about for the last fifty years. Nor is it clear (I didn't cut anything out of the middle of this quote) how we leap from the need to get along with our computer overlords to the demands for these very human qualities.

Vermeulen refers to three events that spurred his epiphany last week.

First, he read an op-ed in a newspaper, which noted that new tech is being introduced not enough and in the wrong way, and we're preparing students for old jobs. "The fact that a rather conventional local newspaper pays attention to the tech makeover of the school curriculum convinces me that the way we are thinking about education has really changed. See #1 above. Vermeulen should probably read a few more articles.

Second, some teachers on a site got upset that students were uploading class materials without permission. "Napster," says Vermeulen, who encourages teachers to join the open-source world, where teachers are no longer authorities on their subject, but just motivators. In fact, in his third event, he attended a conference and realized that the best lectures are like TED talks. So maybe teachers should, you know, do that.

Vermeulen just doesn't get tired of flaunting his lack of knowledge:

If young people aren’t motivated they just lose interest. As educators, we need to think more about how to engage and inspire them.


BAM!!! That thunderclap is the sound of a million teachers whacking palm to forehead. "Motivate students?!" They are crying. "Gosh, we never thought of that!" But it's possible that many of the million never thought of Vermeulen's solution to the problem:

And no doubt this requires more disruption.

What kind of disruption, you ask? Well, it's already here. And that brings us to the third reliable trait of these pieces.

3) Magical thinking and childlike faith in the efficiency, clarity and correctness of anything that comes out of a computer.

Certainly, this change will put more pressure on teachers. They have to adapt materials more often and keep up to date with the latest trends in technology. New technological developments need to be addressed and incorporated into the curriculum. References to online resources have to be constantly reviewed and assignments renewed.

Or, as other writers have suggested, why teach all this knowledge stuff and write your own lesson plans when you can just Google it?

There is this notion that software, computers, and AI can deliver a better educational product, that computers can be the foundation of a perfectly personalized education.

But a computer is not like a God. In fact, I would say it's much more like a television.

The AI's we're being sold these days are not actual independent thinkers-- they're algorithms, collections of long, complex rules, and those rules were written by human beings. Even software that supposedly teaches itself does so by use of human-written rules.

Back in 1979, when I was learning to program in BASIC on punch cards, the first rule of computer work was already GIGO-- Garbage In, Garbage Out. There is nothing that comes out of a computer that is not soaked in the human biases and mistakes of the humans who created it. Khan Academy is lovely, but it's not always right. And if the CDC starts creating educational software tomorrow, how will it be affected by the administration's ban on Seven Naughty Words? And if Net Neutrality is really dead, just how trustworthy and useful will the results that may or may not come to us through the newly-throttled cyberscape?

A computer is like a television-- it is the delivery end of a long conduit, and what comes through that pipe could be anything. The fact that material has come to us through that pipeline does not confer any special status on that material. It does not arrive at the user end scrubbed clean. Turn on FOX and you get the twisted propaganda they fed into it; if some FOX News software arrives to help you "teach" politics, it will be just as trustworthy.

Nor does technology generate scholarship. Vermeulen can exhort teachers to just put their stuff out their on the net, but I'm betting that as an entrepreneur, he does not focus on how to give away products and services for free. Teachers need to eat, too, which means that, as is happening with all sorts of content, they will find ways to protect their rights and their material. That, in turn, means that the whole idea that you can just log on and find top notch stuff is doubtful. The easier it is to find and access, the less likely it is to be worth anyone's time, and the freer it is, the more likely it is to be a ploy to turn you, the user, into a product.

This is one of the mysteries at the heart of some peoples' conception of tech-centered or tech-driven learning-- that quality content will somehow just come into existence by magic, that someone will create these great lessons and materials that will flow out of the computer, even as the technophiles assure us that teachers won't have to create all that stuff anymore, because... well, wait. Where did it come from? 

Education is always being disrupted-- by the teachers who work in the field and who are always looking for ways to do a better job with the students in front of them. But technology, like television, is not a What-- it's a How, and the notion that a better How will somehow magically improve the What survives mostly among people who don't know much about either the How or What that's going on in schools right now. For my final exhibit, consider Vermeulen's closing lines:

Teachers need to become collaborators with the students. It spurs lifelong learning, which can only lead to more creativity and curiosity in the classroom.

BAAMMMM!!!






Thursday, December 14, 2017

The Empty Desk

My first long-term sub job was finishing the year for a teacher who had passed away in her sleep. Her school-age daughter went to wake her, and she was just... gone. This was at my old high school, the school where I now work. I knew the woman, her co-workers, many of the families of the students. It was April, and my job was to coax grieving eighth graders into a classroom that would, for them, be haunted.

I have only encountered the death of a still-working teacher a handful of times in my career. Some hit closer to home than others. My friend Susie and I went back to Fourth Grade together. A gifted performer, she went to college to train professionally and spent a few years criss-crossing the country with professional touring companies of major shows. Eventually she decided that was not the life she wanted; she came back home and took a job as a high school chorale director. She enjoyed it; she was good at it. Then she discovered the cancer.


She worked as long as she was able. One door of her choir room opened directly to the side yard of her school; while she was doing chemo, she would step outside between classes, throw up, and then go back to work.

It's hard on students. Of course, it's enormously hard on students when other students die; when you're a teenager, you don't think about the limits of human mortality very often. But the death of a teacher packs a different punch, perhaps because they mostly don't think of us as humans, exactly. They think of us, expect us to be, immovable pieces of the landscape, as intractable as the ground they stand on. When a student dies, they feel a shudder in their own hearts; when a teacher dies, they feel the earth shift under their feet.

So that's where we are today in my building. A colleague I have taught with for over twenty years is gone. He had battled cancer for a few years now, and in fact had left the job a few weeks ago when his doctors told him he was almost out of time. The students didn't know that; they figured he was just getting healthy again, and would be back in his room, at his desk, again.

He was a former marine who returned from service and got a teaching degree. I can't say that he was the greatest teacher who ever set foot in the building-- we taught in adjoining rooms for years and to this day, most of what I know about National Lampoon''s Christmas Vacation I know from hearing the movie blaring through from the other side of the wall. His teaching methods were very different from mine, and not methods I'd endorse for anyone.

But he cared tremendously about the students. He coached runners for his entire career, investing himself in their efforts. He ran with them until he couldn't any more. He hosted the team at his house for big team meals, even after folks told him, "You know, you really shouldn't do that." You could count on him to show up to chaperone every single school dance. This fall, he defied doctor's orders and with his family keeping watchful eye, traveled to states to support one of his runners. He was a quiet, private person, but the students felt real affection for him. Their teacher-radar told them he was all right.

His obituary is in this morning's paper, and at the beginning of the day we will each read an official announcement from the school. His students will understand that the sub they've been with for a few weeks will now finish the year with them; God bless him for handling that gig. Some students will cry; some will go to the guidance office to take a moment. Many will show up for visitation tomorrow, maybe even the funeral. I will set this to auto-post  later, so that I don't get myself all emotioned up before I work with the students.

Years ago they started telling us that when a student dies, we should just leave their seat empty in the classroom, that students find it disrespectful to "erase" the lost person. I suppose an empty teacher's desk is a similar matter. Hard to say. We haven't been through this many times. Teachers usually retire before they pass, fade from the collective memory of the school they served, move on to some other place in their lives. For those who pass while still in the job, it's different. They will never not be teachers, and their place will always be in the classroom, there, at that empty desk.

This is why education is properly about the big things-- how to be more fully yourself, how to be fully human in the world. Because life is short, and people die, often unfairly and almost always before their work is done. Be kind. Be better. Remember, you only have so many chances before the desk is empty.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The Teacher in the Next Room

The Education Week Research Center has released a study of teachers and their political attitudes and actions. If it is even remotely accurate, it has one huge implication for teachers who are advocates for public education-- never mind trying to influence the public but instead, see if you can influence the teacher in the room next to yours.

The sample size was made up of 555 teachers, 266 school leaders, 202 district leaders, and 99
other school or district employees, so that's a little disproportionate. So is the sampling of two-thirds female and one-third male, which doesn't quite match the lopsidedly female makeup of the nation's teaching staff. They did get the 81% white part right. And the sample skewed "experienced, with 51% having over twenty years on the job. They were spread across the country among schools of varying size and poverty level.


The report is easy to page through, with each question given its own page and an easy-to-read graphic to go with it. You should give it a look. But for the moment, let me just walk you through some of the highlights.

In terms of self-assessing location on the political spectrum, teachers are evenly distributed. 43% in the middle, about 23% to either side and about 4% on each extreme. Yet that translates into 41% Dems, 27% GOP, and 30% independent (with 1% left over for a third party). And it translated into 50% of teachers voting for Clinton, 29% going Trump, 13% going third party, and 8% sitting the election out. That puts teacher participation far ahead of the general public (about 45% stayed away from the Clinton-Trump contest).

None of that was news to me-- I knew about a third of teachers voted for Trump. Nor is it surprising to read that education was the number one "very important" issue to teachers in the election (followed by heath care and the economy).

Now we get to the stuff that tells us just how much work public education advocates have left to do.

Of those Trump voters, 30% have a favorable opinion of Betsy DeVos-- and 10% of Clinton voters do, too. Lord only knows what that favorable opinion is based on. Anti-Common Core? General disdain for public education, and some of us are just stuck in a state of self-loathing that responds to her?

When Clinton voters were asked to grade the Democratic Party on education issues, 2% gave it an A, but 29% gave it a B and 42% gave it a C, which I would call generous. Is this why the Democratic party has generally abandoned teachers and public education-- because most teachers haven't noticed them doing it?

Trump voters were less generous with their own party-- 3% gave the GOP an A, 19% gave it a B, and 35% gave it a C. 56% of Clinton voters gave the GOP an F, which tells me that a whole bunch of Democratic teachers have not yet noticed that there is little difference between Democratic and GOP education policies.

48% of teachers have avoided political activities a little or a lot because of a "concern" that such activities might create problems in their job. Boy, I'd love to see how that shakes out depending on whether they live in a right-to-work untenured state or not.  The report also indicates some mixed feelings about unions-- no shock there.

But then we look at how teachers come down on some current issues.

When it comes to forming charter schools, 74% of all teachers oppose them-- that includes a full 64% of Trump voters. Yet 16% think charters are swell. The numbers are similar for "the use of government funding to help pay students' tuition at private schools," which voucher fans will call an unfair framing of the voucher issue. Still, 25% of Trump voters support the idea along with 11% of Clinton voters. Yet when asked about tuition tax credits (another version of vouchers, only half the teachers oppose them, and a third support.

In what I'd call one of the most shocking returns, only 14% of Trump voters think immigration is a good thing in this country. Granted, that's in keeping with Trump voters in general-- but these are teachers. 66% of Trump voters called immigration "mixed." I am concerned for the children of immigrants who are sitting in the classrooms of those teachers. Oh, and 44% of Trump voters-- and a whopping 17% of Clinton voters-- oppose DACA.

Most depressing result? The respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that students of color have the same educational opportunities as whites in this country. 76% of Trump voters agreed. 37% of Clinton voters agreed. I don't even know where to begin. In total, a full half of teachers do not see any inequity of opportunity by race in this country. Where are they working? What are they reading? What do they see? And what are they doing with the students of color in their own classrooms?

In happy news for reformsters that we are likely to hear repeated, 72% of all teachers support the idea "that different states should use the same standards to hold public schools accountable in reading and math." Note that they didn't use the words "Common Core," so this is in keeping with some previous surveys. But I'm going to go ahead and find it depressing.

Teachers mirror the general population in that they mostly give their local school district A-B grades and the national school system a C. And almost nobody thinks their school system is well funded.

53% of all teachers want less federal involvement, with a whopping 18% want to see more fed meddling (including a full 10% of Trumpists).

Some of these percentages are admittedly small. But they are teachers. Teachers who believe, apparently, that the drive for equity is pointless because students of color have it just as easy as the white kids. Teachers who think that immigrants may just make America worse. Teachers who think the Democratic Party has their back. Teachers who think Betsy DeVos is a fine choice for Secretary of Education, and Donald Trump is a great President.

People outside the education biz sometimes see us as a monolithic group. This survey is a reminder that we aren't. But it's also a reminder to those of us who feel passionately about public education that it's not only outside our walls that we find people who see things differently. It's a reminder that teachers are not immune to the problem of voters voting against their own interests. And it's a reminder that if we're looking for someone to try to convince and convert, we may not have to look any further than the teacher next door.




CHIP and Nobody

As of this writing, CHIP, the health insurance program that covers used to cover almost 9 million children in this country, insuring health care for the most vulnerable citizens who were not going to get it any other way-- that program has gone unfunded by Congress for months, with the states' ability to keep it going slowly but surely dwindling to nothing. Congress has been busy, y'know, trying to create a trillion dollar hole in the economy.



This is the worst kind of dereliction of duty. This is the worst kind of abandonment of an ever-growing sector of our society that so badly needs our help.

So I want to be clear about this.

Nobody in Congress-- nobody-- gets to talk about the "sanctity" of human life while they allow 9 million poor children to go without health insurance. If you believe life is sacred, than help protect the 9 million lives that are here.

Nobody in Congress-- nobody-- gets to talk about how we need to pursue charters or vouchers or some other education reform in order to promote "equity." If you care so much about equity, then make sure that 9 million children have equal access to health care.

Nobody in Congress-- nobody-- gets to talk about how we're pursuing a policy "for the children." If you want to do something "for the children," then get 9 million poor children some damned health care.

Nobody in Congress-- nobody-- gets to talk about how children just can't wait one more minute to upend the educational system so that they can be saved from the terrible, awful, no good, bad public school system. You know what can't wait one more minute? A child who's sick and has no damned health insurance.

Please, Congress-- wake up and do at least some small portion of your damned jobs. Health insurance for poor children is a bipartisan no-brainer. Get the hell to work!

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

How To Teach Social and Emotional Skills

Social and Emotional Learning is once again (or still, depending on who's talking) a thing. Character education, values education, teaching students how to be Good People. It erupts every so often in the education system, just as the business world is sporadically hit with seminars and training sessions about How To Talk To Customers or How To Interact Productively with Other Carbon Based Life Forms (you can spot people who have had these trainings because when they talk to you, it will always be in the format "Why, [insert name here], I hear what you're saying. [Insert rough paraphrase of what you think/hope the person said].")

I pin the return of SEL on the rise of test-centered learning, on a rising tide of people looking around and saying, "Oh, yeah-- I suppose there is more to learning to be a grown-up human than just bubbling answers on a Big Standardized Test." That realization has dovetailed with the push from Data Overlords and Corporate Reformers to collect data on the pertinent personality traits of these future meat widgets. After all, when I send HR to plug into cradle to career pipeline, I don't just want to order up math and reading skills-- I want to know about soft skills like showing up on time, not upsetting customers, and obediently following orders (those are the soft skills, right?)

That uneasy marriage of SEL fans underlines one of the problems of social and emotional education -- we may all agree that we want children to grow up to be good people, but whose idea of a good person? Historically, we've seen plenty of parents get prickly over the notion that a school will decide what kind of person their child should grow up to be.

Even if we can get past that, we have to figure out how to teach SEL Stuff to students, and the approaches available are bizarre, as if aliens are setting up "How To Act Like a Human Being" classes. A large number of companies offer all manner of modules, including some with scripted lessons-- because nothing says "Learn To Be a Naturally Better Human" than listening to a teacher read from a script.

Maybe these program designers and the people who adopt them aren't overthinking this. Maybe I'm not thinking enough. But I would swear that the best way ton teach students to be decent human beings is to be a decent human being in your classroom, all day, every day.

I mean, here's a Summit school-- Zuckerberg's infamous education in a box program-- running a weekly class entitled "Habits, Community, and Culture (HCC) class, where students learn Habits of Success and develop social and emotional learning (SEL) skills." It seems like a swell idea and the folks in the photo are smiling, but all I can think is "What do they do the rest of the week?"

How do you take SEL "content" and separate it from everything else, when your character is first and foremost the "How" of conducting all the other business in your life? How can you possibly split your life up so that "be ethical" is over here and "conduct daily business" is over there? Trying to develop character separate from conducting all the business is like trying to develop a Southern accent separate from speaking. It's like trying to practice swimming far from any water.

You don't get rid of bullying by running bullying programs one hour a week. You get rid of bullying by running a school that never tolerates-- or models-- bullying ever. If for one hour a week you talk about how bullying is bad, but the rest of the week you run a classroom where it's understood that some people deserve to be punished or hurt or made to feel small, your bullying program is a huge waste of time.

If you spend an hour a week talking about how to be a decent person, and the rest of the week behaving like a lousy person, you're wasting that hour. And if you spend the week being decent people, what do you need that hour of class for?

I agree that there is one sign that SEL seems called for-- we are in a society moment right now where the idea of character is so debased and displaced that teaching seems like a thing we might need. But character is not a discrete element of your life, like math skills or playing the tuba or color coordinating your clothes. Character is how you do everything else. If your life is a wave, character is the water it moves through.

And yes, sadly, I admit that with so many adults lost, we increasingly need to help littles understand their own hearts and map their own emotions and connections to others.

If you want to teach your students to live with thoughtful character, then do so yourself, in front of them, out loud. If you want them to learn respect, live in your classroom with respect. If you want them to learn honesty, live honesty in front of them. If you want them to learn thoughtful, reflecting growth, then live that every day. Grab the moments when they come.

None of this comes in a program in a box with a script. When I worked summers in private industry, we used to make fun of courses like "How to pretend you care . about your employees" or "How to fake authenticity" (I may be paraphrasing course titles). Much of what's offered for SEL reminds me of those. You cannot fake it.

And for God's sake, don't implement these programs because they might improve test scores or make students more employable. You learn to be a better person, a person of character, because it makes your life better. Without character, decency, all those better qualities, a person could become rich and powerful, even rise to the highest position in a country, and still be miserable and unhappy, a blot on the surface  of the planet.

What we call SEL is learning to be your best self, to become, to journey, to try to grasp what it means to be fully human in the world, to rise and advance in spirit. You should be doing that, too, and helping your students, showing your students. Profiteers and narrow policy makers have hollowed out so much of education. Don't let them take this, too.


Monday, December 11, 2017

The Failure of Test Prep Nation

Bill Gates said it would take us ten years to see if  "this stuff" (aka Common Core and its attendant testing baloney) would work  It's increasingly clear that we won't have to wait that long.

Right up front, I want to be clear-- I could not care less about the results of the PISA or the PIRLS or any other Big Standardized Test that pretends to measure the educational achievement and effectiveness of students, teachers, schools, or nations.

But this is the game reformsters wanted to play, the game at which they promised us a win, so by all means-- let's see if they delivered.

And the answer continues to be, "Nope."

New international testing results show a precipitous drop for US fourth graders in reading scores.



And yet, these are the students who have had a lifetime of test prep. They have been soaked in Common Core since Day One, and to an even greater extent, soaked in the discipline of using Common Core as directed test prep for each state's Big Standardized Test.

This was necessary, we were told over and over again, to keep the US competitive internationally. We were getting beaten by Estonia! Do you want to get beaten by Estonia? At one point, reformsters even tried to make our test-taking readiness, our best-of-show bubbling, a matter of national security! We needed Common Core and the attached battery of BS Tests to get the next generation ready to whip Estonia, to get the US back on top! We would become Test Prep Nation.

And so they arranged to hijack that next generation. Educational experts be damned-- kindergarten had better become the new First Grade (or maybe Second Grade) so that we could start cramming academics and test-taking skills into the brains of those little slackers. Third graders wouldn't even be allowed into Fourth Grade until they could prove they were willing and able to pass a standardized reading test (never mind their actual reading skills-- we need them to score well on that damn test).  Education experts and professionals and parents of all shapes and sizes said, "This is a bad idea. A really bad idea. Do you even have a shred of evidence that national standards and a test-based accountability system do any good, ever?"

"Hush up,' said (some) reformsters. "Just follow our plan and watch those scores rise."

And it hasn't happened. It hasn't even happened a little.

Not that we should brace ourselves for the apologies and walkbacks and reconsideration of these bold ideas. Ed Secretary Betsy DeVos offered this reaction:

Our students can’t move ahead – in school or in life – if they’re falling behind in reading. We must do better for students, parents & educators. We must #RethinkSchool

Sigh. Not entirely untrue on the necessity of reading skills, but there is a difference-- a deep, profound, significant difference-- between being able to read well and being able to score well on a standardized reading test (particularly a crappy one). And being able to read is a good first step, but it helps is the economy for poor folks isn't being trashed and the social safety net isn't in tatters and employers are paying a true living wage for work.

And teachers everywhere are bracing themselves for the inevitable "Well, the Core and the BS Tests are awesome. This should be working. Those damned public school teachers are screwing everything up. What we need are more vouchers and charters!"

Meanwhile, we have to watch our international standing. As (some) reformsters warned, low test scores are arriving at the same time that US international stature and leadership are decaying. Could it be that PISA and PIRLS scores really are the problem? Or could there be some other explanation that doesn't involve fourth graders?

Standardized Tests Are a Poor Substitute for Justice

John Kuhn is a Texas superintendent who has been watch the reform biz unfold for a while now. Here, in a quick two minute video, he connects the inequity of school funding to the injustice of offering poor schools not funding, not help, not resources, not support-- but standardized tests. The same politicians who keep some schools poor also demand that those schools hit the same marks that wealthy districts do.

It's the one thing that has never happened with standardized tests. No lawmakers or policy mavens declare, "This school has low scores-- we had better get them some more funding and resources and help right away." Instead, low test scores put a target on a school's back-- this one is ripe for privatizing, closing, replacing, chopping into easily-sold pieces.

Watch this, and pass it on.


2 School Districts, 1 Ugly Truth from S4E Media on Vimeo.

Remember this line: "Educational malpractice doesn't happen in the classroom. The greatest educational malpractice happens in the statehouse, not the schoolhouse."

Sunday, December 10, 2017

ICYMI: First Snow Edition

Okay, you may want to curl up with some hot chocolate and a blanket, because this week turned up an awful lot of reading material. Remember, only you can amplify the voices you think need to be heard!



Our School Systems Deserve Better Than This

Charles Pierce at Esquire takes a hard look at charter schools and segregation. You will not have to guess what he thinks.

Green Dots Suspension Rates Continue To Be Remarkably High

As the debates about school discipline heat up, School Data Nerd looks at hard data from one charter group, and finds that they are booting kids out at a high rate.

Douglas County School Board Ends Controversial Voucher Program

A few years ago, reformsters captured the Douglas County (Colorado) school board and proceeded to launch the nation's first district-level voucher system. Turns out that mostly what they did was wake up local voters. Here's how a reformy tide can be turned back,

Turkish Gulen Schools in America

The Gulen chain is perhaps the most notorious charter chain in the US, serving as a fundraising project for a Turkish government-in-exile. Mercedes Schneider looks at some of the most current tools for tracking these guys.

Success Academy's Radical Experiment

Everybody wanted to write about Eva this week for some reason. Here's the New Yorker's take on the queen of Success Academy

Tolerating failing schools in New Orleans-- as long as they're for black kids

Andre Perry takes a look at the latest bad news for fans of the NOLA chartering experiment

What Is Motivation Porn and Why Does Higher Education Seems Addicted To It

A great look a thing I didn't even realize was a thing, but as soon as I read this, I could see it everywhere. Grit, anyone?

Update on Summit Schools

Leonie Haimson took a trip to one of the schools running the Summit school-in-a-box program. In some ways, it seems even more unimpressive than I thought it would be.

Influencers and the Hillary Campaign

While technically water under the bridge, a reminder that Democrats are no BFFs of public education either. And some of this water is still flowing around making trouble.

A Portfolio of Schools

Matt Barnum at Chalkbeat kicks off a series of stories about the portfolio approach to reform, and it will probably not make you happy.

Voucher Schools Can Teach Whatever They Want

HuffPost did some heavy-duty research into what is actually taught at the mostly-religious schools that benefit from vouchers in this country. You may have expected the emphasis on anti-evolution and anti-science, but there's a also a healthy dose of political conservatism (and get them women back in the kitchen). How Betsy DeVos wants your tax dollars to work.

Kindergarten to Work Second Shift

In Florida, a parent offers a great response to the school district that wants her kindergarten student to go home and log onto the computer to do more school work.

She Breaks Rules While Expecting Students To Follow Them

Lisa Miller reviews the Moskowitz memoir and identifies some of Eva's central problems, like how she is proud of being a rebel, and demands that all of her students never rebel at all. It gets better.

How America Is Breaking Public Education

Always interesting when the mostly-conservative Forbes goes against type. The thesis here is a good one-- "we've disobeyed the cardinal rule of success in any industry: treating your workers like professionals."

Teach Kids To Start Unions

Rachel Cohen interviews Malcolm Harris, who has many intersting things to say about Kids These Days




IN: Diminishing Education

Indiana's State Board of Education has voted to diminish the value and purpose of education in the state.

The BOE has adopted a new set of graduation requirements that will begin taking effect with the freshman class of 2019. With these standards, the board aligns themselves with the "college and career ready" crowd and leaves behind notions that education has any purpose other than to train students for future employment.



You can check out some of the specifics here, but this is one of those times when the devil is not really in the details, but is in the broad goals and purposes of the program. Graduates in the class of 2023 will need to meet the following requirements:

* Rack up enough course credits.
* Complete "post-secondary competencies" by doing one of the following: earning an honors diploma, finishing apprenticeship or career-technical courses or meeting college-ready standards for ACT, SAT, ASVAB tests.
* Learn and demonstrate employability skills.

The first is same old, same old. The second is, sadly, not new at this point. Just the status quo obeisance to the Cult of Testing, with the door open, at least, for something other than the usual testing gods.

But that third one.

Please note-- I do think it's a great idea for graduates to be able to find work. Getting a job is not a bad thing.

But to say that you cannot graduate until you prove that you can be a useful meat widget for a future employer-- that idea represents a hollowing out of educational goals. Be a good citizen? Become a fine parent? Lifelong learning? Developing a deeper, better more well-rounded picture of who you can become as a person, while better understanding what it means to be human in the world? Screw that stuff, kid. Your future employer has the only question that matters-- "What can you do for me, kid?"

The suppose Awesome Features of the new requirements don't make it sound any better. It opens the door to personalized learning, which-- well, problems with modern PL aside, saying you will now make everyone go to the same destination, but they can pick how they get there is the silliest version of personalization since Henry Ford offered cars in any color you want, as long as it's black.

But hey-- the new requirements will be locally flexible and workforce-aligned, so that your local business operators can stop by and say, "Whip us up forty good applicants for these jobs we might want to fill." Sure. I offer this deal-- I'll have my school take over vocational training for your plant the same day that you guarantee a job for every single graduate that we train for you. The requirements also make much of how the personalization comes because the students will be selecting their life career path, which leads me to believe that the Board has not actually met any fourteen-year-olds.

The new standards throw in rigor and currency, while tossing skills gap and other concepts that only make sense if you believe that the purpose of the education system is to serve business and corporate interests. If you think public education should serve the interests of students, parents and the community as well, then Indiana's great new idea is a great step backward.

Presumably local districts are free to add to this sorry list and bring their educational goals back in line with something a little more like education, but that can't erase the job training for meat widgets heart of these new requirements. The Board adopted them by a vote of 7-4, from which we can deduce that seven members of the Indiana Board of Education don't really understand their job.

Friday, December 8, 2017

Tolerating the Minimum

From the moment at her confirmation hearing when she fumbled the question about IDEA, Betsy DeVos has faced a huge disconnect between two impulses.

One is the impulse to make sure that students with special needs get the services they need. I've read enough to believe that DeVos is essentially sincere on this point. But it runs smack into her other impulse, which is that the government shouldn't tell anybody how to do anything.

This surfaced in her recent speech at Jeb Bush's Charterpalooza. Now here it is again at EdWeek, in a special commentary about students with special needs.


DeVos is spinning off the Supreme Court decision about Endrew F., a student whose parents wanted more than the "de minimis" offered by their home school district. They went to court to have the district pay for a more appropriate school setting for their son, and won, mostly. As an extra prize, they won the chance to become propes in DeVos's pro-choice arguments, a position that they have forcefully declined. But DeVos has kept it up anyway.

"When it comes to educating students with disabilities, failure isn't acceptable. De minimis isn't either," writes DeVos.

That's a noble position, and in many ways superior to the Duncan position that all effects of special needs could be erased by the power of high expectations (though she kind of believes that, too). It just doesn't fit very well with the rest of her plans for education. It's nice to say that failure is unacceptable, but unacceptable to whom? And who is going to make the school do something about it, if the government's position is that they shouldn't be strong-arming anyone?

First, if the government is going to dump a bunch of regulations and barely enforce the rest, exactly who is going to insure that students with special needs aren't failed? From her confirmation hearing onward, DeVos has consistently refused to envision a scenario in which her department would step in and tell a school, "You can't do that." So wishing for equity and extra effort and appropriate programs for students is, without the weight if any enforcement behind it, just wishing.

Second, DeVos thinks this is an argument for choice. It isn't.

Every family should have the ability to choose the learning environment that is right for their child. They shouldn’t have to sue their way to the U.S. Supreme Court to get it. 

She repeats this line from her Charterpalooza speech, and it's a line that's thick with irony. Because, of course, if Endrew's parents were unhappy with the program offered him at a charter or voucher school, they couldn't sue anyone at all. The charter operators could simply smile and say, "Well, if we aren't satisfying your requirements here, you are certainly free to vote with your feet." And then they could point at the door.

Students like Endrew are expensive to educate. That was kind of the point of everything that led his parents to the Supreme Court. Charters are businesses, and as such, they have to make prudent fiscal decisions, and every business that ever existed learns that some potential customers just aren't worth it. Every business makes a distinction between customers they'll try to collect, and customers they will deliberately try to NOT collect. There is no business model based on providing goods or services to every single potential customer-- not for individual businesses or for whole industry sectors.  For charter schools, high needs, high cost students like Endrew are not desirable-- and right now no court in the land can force those schools to properly serve a student like Endrew.

Endrew was fortunate that his parents found a school that could help him. But not all students with special needs will be so lucky. So what happens to a student that nobody wants to serve. If the public school is so strapped for resources, hollowed out by the costs of charters, and no charters are willing to accept that student, then what should the parents do? And exactly who is responsible for that student?

Students with special needs represent a special challenge. They are in danger of being more marginalized as more folks push the idea that schools are job prep centers, aimed at making every student a valuable asset to a future employer. But some non-zero number of students will never meet that standard. If we are evaluating humans strictly on cost-benefits basis, some students will cost far more to educate than they will ever put back into society. But those students are still someone's child, and they are still capable of love and kindness and everything that makes being a human more than just being a useful meat widget. 

In any choice system, certain students-- some special needs, behavioral problems, low function, etc-- will be the hot potatoes. Nobody in the marketplace is going to want them. Betsy DeVos thinks a choice system is a perfect way to serve those students, but she's simply wrong. That's because in a choice system, the choice belongs to the school, not the parents. Providing choice without oversight, without attaching either funding or mandates to certain students, will create a system in which some students are well served and some students are out in the cold. If the public school system is the only school being told "You must educate these children" even as they are being stripped of the resources needed to do the job, those students will be abandoned in a mess that even the Supreme Court can't fix.

We shouldn't tolerate minimum efforts by schools to educate all students. We shouldn't tolerate charter and choice schools doing less than the minimum to educate all students. And it might help if the USED didn't tolerate a minimum effort from itself to getting a fully-funded equitable education for every student.

Snapchat Chief Joins Pearson Board

Michael Lynton is joining the board of Pearson, everyone's favorite educational behemoth. (h/t Caitlin McCarthy).

Who is he? An educational expert? A big name in the study of pedagogy? A guy with expertise in leading a school system? A person who's created a lot of valuable and successful educational material?


Nope. He's the chairman of Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, that social media app that your students love and you can't figure out how to work. Lynton is also the former chairman-CEO of Sony Entertainment. And he's not completely new to Pearson-- he worked for the publishing giant back in the late 90s as head of their Penguin Group.He has some other entertainment and publishing world credits as well.

Why Lynton? A plausible explanation is that Pearson has long banked its health on being able to conquer the digitizing and datafication of education, and Lynton fits that vision. 

“The Pearson board and leadership already has strong digital talent and expertise, and Michael’s appointment augments that perfectly,” Pearson chairman Sidney Taurel said in a statement. “His experience and perspective will further strengthen Pearson and drive our transformation to be a more focused, simpler digital learning company.”

A fresh set of eyes may be called for, as Pearson's attempt to conquer US education via Common Core hasn't exactly gone as planned. Just last spring there was speculation they might be getting out of that market.  But Lynton is a believer:

Education is the next frontier in the digital revolution and Pearson is uniquely well placed to lead the way. I’m impressed by the major investment in the products of the future and the creation of a single, global learning platform.

A single global learning platform. There is no reason, of course, to believe that such a platform would be good for education. But, wow-- would it ever be profitable as hell, particularly with its ability to gather, mine, and crunch data, a long-favorite vision of Pearson honcho Michael Barber.

Snapchat made a name for itself as a platform for sending messages and pictures that would immediately disappear, but I'm not sure I see how useful that approach would be for education. But if my students are any measure, Snapchat has been hugely successful at reaching the teen market, and I'm sure Pearson would find that helpful.

If nothing else, Pearson's acquisition of Lynton is a reminder that in the world of corporate ed reform, education credentials are not only unnecessary, but not particularly desirable. It's a business, run with business values and business goals.

School Violence: The New Normal

There was a shooting yesterday in New Mexico. Two students were killed; the shooter is dead as well.

Hadn't heard about it? Or the shooting the day before in Colorado? That's understandable-- I just completed a cursory search of various news sites online, and only a couple included the story at all, and none included it as a major story. It's true that many sites use some form of click-based ranking-- the more people who click on the story, the more prominently it's featured on the page. I'm not sure whether that makes me feel better, or worse. Probably worse.



We have a new standard for coverage of school shootings in this country-- it's only news if it sets a new record of some sort. Usually that means highest body count. That's grim news indeed-- if your goal is to become famous as a school shooter, and you're paying attention, then you have to know that you'll only get there with a super-high body count. This may qualify as the most perverse incentive ever.

It was not always like this.

There was a time when any death in a school was news. It was shocking. It was alarming. Schools would shut down over the slightest hint that they might be targeted by some shooter.

We seem to have turned a corner. As many folks have noted, about the time we decided that the deaths of twenty children at Sandy Hook were sad, but not a reason to actually do anything. When we decided that the price of freedom is to occasionally have small children killed, their bodies violated by bullets-- well, after that point, there hardly seems any reason to make a fuss about it any more. Just another day. Dog bites man. Shooter kills students. Thoughts and prayers.

What seems most incredible these days are the conspiracy theorists who cry "False flag" for these shootings. Their concern is that the government will use the shooting as a reason to implement gun control. Which is truly ridiculous. The national debate about gun control is over, and the gun fans and the NRA won-- we're going to continue to do nothing, and we'll just write off the shooting deaths as the price of freedom.

Meanwhile, those of us who work in schools drill for active shooters as regularly as we drill for tornadoes or severe weather. Taxpayers will pay for door lock systems and camera surveiilance around the building. Occasionally we'll be subject to really alarming active shooter drills. And if we discuss solutions at all, it will be ridiculous ones, like arming teachers in the building.

I don't have any quick and easy answers to any of this, but I can't help noticing that this is one more sad commentary on how little we as a society actually value children. And if we can't even get serious about keeping them safe from harm, how can we get serious about giving them a decent education.

No, we've decided that a certain small percentage of our children are expendable, less valuable than my right to carry a gun around, to keep a firearm in my home or car or holster because, you know, if a man's not free to blow a hole in something or someone with a gun, then a man's just not free at all. And if the cost of that freedom is a few children killed every week, well, so be it. And in the meantime, we might as well adjust to this new normal by ceasing to make a fuss about it. IF it ain't a new record, it ain't news. Dog bites man. Shooter kills students. Thoughts and prayers.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

All Hail Queen Eva?

The Jan/Feb issue of the Atlantic offers a profile of Eva Moskowitz that is both thorough and disturbing, all the more so because it is written by Elizabeth Green, an education writer who co-founded Chalkbeat back in the day. The portrait is loving and glowing and troubling, particularly in the Age of Trump, suggesting that Moskowitz is the monster that education needs.

Green opens by taking us back to her days as a "young and enthusiastic" reporter, a whole decade ago. She had come to New York "to cover the biggest education revolution ever attempted." Back then, she thought the major players were Michael Bloomberg and Joel Klein, but looking back, she takes note of "a 5-foot-2-inch redhead from Harlem."

I had visited impressive schools before, but none quite like this.

From the beginning, it's clear that Green thinks Success Academies are impressive. That's an impression that she never really questions, and she seems to credit that impressiveness to just one factor-- Eva Moskowitz. Moskowitz, she says, "stalked the school corridors more like a rear admiral than a pedagogue," talking about the obstacles she faced. Green calls her "either paranoid or plagued, probably some of both." When Moscowitz feels "under siege, she could neither attack nor defend. She picked the Napoleon option."

Nice train. I hope it's on time.

Moskowitz had plans, Green notes. Ambitious plans,  "not a proof point but a blueprint, not a Gap but a kind of educational superstore. A whole new school system, run by her instead of the government." Young Green found the plan to grow Success stunning, audacious.  But Moskowitz made it all happen-- and more. Now "she has become one of the country's most influential crusaders at a turning point for charter schooling." It's a curious claim-- Moskowitz is one of the great charter survivors, but it's not clear that Eva has ever "crusaded" for anyone other than Eva.

But Green is not done providing uncritical praise:

Empire has not killed quality.

By now, you may have noticed the military leader references piling up. Moskowitz runs an "empire," and "marches" forward. And Green continues to uncritically list Moskowitz's victories in which Eva "trounces" her peers. Green reports on Success scores, but never asks how they are achieved. Nor does she mention that though Success students ace the state test, they have had trouble with NYC district tests for getting into top high schools. 

Green acknowledges that even supporters keep Moskowitz at "what can generously be called a careful distance."  But Green attributes this simply to Moskowitz's personal style. "Her acid tirades are legendary and can get scathingly personal more quickly than I might have believed had she not once dressed me down after I wrote a story she didn’t like."

Green says that Moskowitz's book is "plainly positioned to soften and humanize," and yet Moskowitz cannot restrain her prickly side, swiping at enemies, complaining about the media, and showing "no patience for critics who question Success's high-stress test prep." And here we arrive at Green's main thrust:

Personally, I draw the line at evil, but Moskowitz is undeniably scary. Cross her, and you’ve also crossed her students, her schools, and justice itself. Entrusting a person who has such an exceptional capacity for venom with the care of children can seem unwise. Which is just one reason I am more than a little terrified by the conclusion I’ve reached: Moskowitz has created the most impressive education system I’ve ever seen. And as she announces in her memoir, 46 schools is just the beginning. “We need to reach more students,” she writes.

"Most impressive education system I've ever seen" is a  personal, subjective measure. But Green avoids examining it. She mentions the brutal child discipline tapes covered by the New York Times (which also lead to the discovery of the Got-to-go lists), but she doesn't consider the reality of what those stories reveal. She notes the criticism of test prep at Success, but doesn't question what that says about the schools. She avoids other criticism, like the issue of high student attrition (and no backfill) at the Success Academies. They remain, in her eyes, impressive.

The next section of the piece looks at Moskowitz's evolution and career. Her growing frustration with a system that wouldn't let her do what she wanted to do. Her political aspirations thwarted by the unions.

Green sets that against her own evolution as a reporter. She recalls the growth of other reformers who seemed to "enflame" parents and whose "district-hating came with a thuggish brand of teacher-bashing." She saw vilifying teachers and unions as counter-productive because "it alienated the same overloaded foot soldiers." Note where teachers rank in Green's military model of the education world. Green knows that people like Democracy and all, but, well, she also began to see the appeal of "blowing up school districts."  She was disillusioned with public school districts and their general mess.

The reason isn’t terrible union contracts or awful management decisions. The fault, I came to see, lies in the (often competing) edicts issued by municipal, state, and federal authorities, which add up to chaos for the teachers who actually have to implement them. It’s not uncommon for a teacher to start the year focused on one goal—say, improving students’ writing—only to be told mid-year that writing is no longer a priority, as happened just the other day at a Boston school I know of. We could hardly have designed a worse system for supporting good teaching had we tried.

I'm with her on the terrible state and federal authority edicts (see most of the previous 2700 posts on this blog), but I'm not ready to let awful management off the hook. It is, in fact, administrators of districts who decide how much havoc those government edicts are going to create. But I think Green needs to let management off the hook, because she's working up an argument in favor of the superstar CEO model of school management.

Certainly, she declares herself a charter fan.

Of all the reforms that have set out to free schools from this trap, to date I’ve seen only one that works: the implementation of charter-school networks. 

And she means large networks, ones that can supply teachers and be insulated from politics. And if you think this is an implied attack on Democracy, well, there's nothing implied about it--

They have strengthened public education by extracting it from democracy as we know it—and we shouldn’t be surprised, because democracy as we know it is the problem.

 Next Green wants to argue that charter networks are "gaining traction" and spreading  and she is going to trot out David Osborne, who's current tour in support of his book about Reinventing America;s School is remarkably selective in his use of facts.

She notes that opponents exist and that they call this whole trend "privatization," and while she reports that Moskowitz considers that an "inaccurate smear," she does not ask if the critics have a point. She brushes past it with a "whatever you label it," and now goes to bat for the idea of choice and lotteries.

She notes that district schools must take responsibility for all students in their sphere, whether they expel them or not, while charters can be more limited in their admissions. Green ignores the issue of backfilling vacated seats again here, and ignores the issue of lotteries that cream out only those families able to navigate that bureaucratic process. Green will, however, repeat the charter claim that they are a force for social justice.  And she once again repeats, unexamined, the classic charter claim: "Charter schools, by contrast, hand the power of choice to parents who can’t afford to exercise it through real estate."

She reports uncritically the Moskowitz claim that charter schools are "the best shot at delivering the public school system we wish we had," as if Success Academy did not have a long record of serving only the students it wants to serve (which is not the public education system I wish for). She passes along Moskowitz's claim that charters are the solution to integration, as if the AP had not just released a report showing the exact opposite.

Finally, far down the page, Green admits that at Success " for all Moskowitz's eloquence about the importance of rigorous academics and extracurricular activities, test prep comes first." Finally we get to backfilling. And Green sadly notes that  parents often choose schools for convenience and location, rather than excellence.

In her conclusion, Green wrestles with some issues without naming them. She earlier dismissed "privatization" as a concern, but in the final stretch she notices that Moskowitz and other charter operators are mostly a collection of rich people who are used to owning and running businesses. She claims that the unscrupulous operators gravitate toward the for-profit charters, but fails to notice the many ways that non-profits can be quite profitable (in fact, she need look no further than Moskowitz, who draws a higher salary than the chancellor of the entire New York City school system). By this point in the article, my frustration with Green is running pretty high-- she can walk right up to issues without actually naming them:

But I do think that bequeathing power over the education of America’s children to a tiny group of ever more influential plutocrats means that the rest of us will have much less say in the direction of public schools than we do today.

Well, yes.  That's privatization. And anti-Democratic. And she goes on to note that overseeing charters is necessary, but difficult, because charters really resistant to being examined (again, she need look no further than Moskowitz, who has taken the state of New York to court to avoid being accountable for how she spends tax dollars).

What, Green worries, if the plutocrats who run these schools get legislators to weaken oversight and empower wealthy board members? And at this point I wonder if she has been covering Eva "Go To Albany and Demand That the Rules Be Changed To Suit Me" Moskowitz with only one eye half open. And is that eye plagued with some sort of shmutz that keeps her from examining the nasty little details of this "impressive" system?

In the end, Green seems ready to dump Democracy, scrap public schools, and elevate an autocratic Beloved Leader CEO charter system. In a way, it's fitting that in an era in which some people are willing to turn to a one-person authoritarian form of the Presidency under Beloved Leader Trump, some folks will also yearn for the same system for schools, arguing that she may be a dictator, she may be autocratic, she may require the suspension of Democracy, but I think she means well, and she makes the trains run on time. Just don't look too closely at where the train is running or exactly who gets to ride on board.



Can Continuing Ed Ed Suck Less?

Ed Week is addressing the question of teacher recertification in a big slab of articles this week (produced with "support from" the Joyce Foundation), each of which addresses a piece of the bigger picture. If you're intrigued, here's the thumbnail sketch of each, with an eyeball rating between one and four. Four eyeballs means you should check this one out, and one eyeball means never mind. Let's go:

Is Teacher Recertification Broken?

Setphen Sawchuk leads off with the second-to-biggest question. The biggest question is "Was teacher recertification ever not broken?" Sawchuck starts off with one incisively exact statement:

Every five years, teachers across the United States engage in a ritual of sorts, submitting paperwork to prove they’ve sat through a specified number of hours of coursework and paying a fee to renew their licenses. 

Then he follows it with a less incisive statement:

It’s hard to think of something that has more influence over teachers:

Well.... I get his point. Recertification provides a great deal of leverage. But the fact that the content of the recertification process doesn't really influence teachers at all is part and parcel of the whole "broken" thing. And he goes on to lay that out as an intro to the series-- nobody really knows what is going on in the world of recertification, but everyone's pretty sure that whatever it is, it's not helping much at all.

Four eyeballs.

Teacher Professional Development: Many Choices, Few Quality Checks

Sawchuk takes a look at the mini-industry that has popped up to help teachers get their hours in. In the process, he drops a factoid that helps explain why recertification remains so mysterious-- the most recent USED data is from 2011-2012.

He gets that choices are usually made based on convenience and time constraints. Which means lots of teachers get as many hours as possible from their own district's professional development (in states like PA, most PD must by law be applicable to recert purposes). But there are also a variety of  vendors out there, and nobody is really checking to see whether they're any good or not. And many of those vendors offer courses based on what they want to offer, not what teachers want to take.

All of which seems about right. We make a decision on a matrix of time, convenience, and "most likely to not be a total waste of my time."

Three eyeballs.

Even National Board Teachers Don't Get a Pass on License Renewal

Madeline Will lays out what most of us know-- getting national board certified is a hell of a lot more work than sitting through the average PD or recert course, and yet somehow, it doesn't count toward the recert process. This is dumb. Will just puts some specifics behind it that help underline how dumb it is.

Three eyeballs.

Wisconsin Killed License Renewal. So Why Are Teachers Upset.

Wisconsin's recert process was clunky and dumb, so they killed it. And teachers were upset, because they were afraid the lack of such a process makes teaching look less professional.  That's it. unless you want names and specifics, you don't have to read the article now.

Two eyeballs.

It's Not How Long You Spend in PD, It's How Much You Grow

Liana Loewus takes us to Georgia, where a new approach to recert is ditching "sit'n'git"  PD with a different system based on setting a goal for personal growth and meeting it.

In Georgia, this involves Professional Learning Communities, the DuFour pioneered model that all the cool kids are using these days. It's an interesting approach, particularly notable because the state appears to be taking a "hands-off approach" and trusting principals to tend to their own house. "We can’t ask educators within your school to trust each other if we’re not also going to trust you,” said David Hill, head of special projects for the state standards board.

What an extraordinary approach! Teachers work together to help each other get better, and the state takes their principal's word for it that Good Things are happening. While the system would seem to depend upon having a principal who's not a jackass, and it gets into all the problems of peer reviews, it's still an intriguing approach.

Four eyeballs.

Inching Toward Relicensure, One "Microcredential" at a Time

Sawchuk interviews Paul Fleming from Tennessee, who explains how their micro-credential system works. I'll admit-- when I saw "micro-credential" I envisioned a bunch of teachers strapped to computers taking stupid tests at the end of slide-show presentations about the kind of "competencies" that can be crammed into power-point slides. Yuck.

Tennessee seems to be up to something different, with elements of peer review and using actual evidence from the classroom instead of clicking a mouse at a screen. The system is new and there seem to be some questions yet to be answered, and the interview is brief.

Three eyeballs.

Making a Case for "Timely, Purposeful, Progressive" PD

Brian Curtin wants us to think about how much the world has changed since we started teaching, so that the tide of change will help us feel that it's "imperative" that PD be newer and better. And he's going to tell us that teacher quality is the single biggest factor in student achievement (and he's not going to bother to include the qualifier that this is the biggest "in school" factor). Also, Google tools. And timeliness. And so much corporate style jargon that it's hard to believe that this guy is an actual English teacher (but he is). But continuous education should be continuous, and happen when we can immediately apply what we learn, because we forget things that happen in the summer. And student outcomes.

One eyeball. Maybe even half an eyeball, but that would be gross.

Cutting a New Path on License Renewal for Teachers

Kim Walters-Parker, like Curtin, seems to have many, many things to say, and in trying to say all of them, ends up not saying much. It should be harder to become a teacher. Maintaining a law license is very hard; maintaining a teacher's certificate is not. Change should be approached with a long view. And when she gets to the "what should recert look like question," she answers "Frankly, I don't know."

One eyeball.

 How Licensing Rules Kept One Teacher of the Year Out of Public Schools

Megan Allen is that teacher, and her Florida certificate did not transfer easily to Massachusetts.

It's a real problem, though I'm not sure the problem is so much reciprocity as it is that some states would give a teaching certificate to an upright badger with a piece of chalk strapped to its paw. And as states move to issue teaching certificates to anyone with any degree, or allow charters to "certify" their own "teachers," reciprocity becomes a bigger challenge. How do you maintain high standards in your own state when North Pennsyltucky has lowered standards to the basement?

Improving reciprocity would, as Allen hints, be a natural solution to recruiting issues. Allen herself ended up pushed out of the classroom by her intra-state move, and that is no small matter. But at the same time, as I consider the state of education in Massachusetts and Florida, I have to conclude that Massachusetts understands some things about teachers and public schools that Florida does not, which in turn would lead me to doubt whether a Florida certificate was good enough to gain automatic entrance to classrooms in other states.

Four eyeballs.

That's the package. An interesting collection about an under-discussed topic for which there are few simple answers. Teachers who are any good in the classroom grow constantly; it would be better, perhaps, for states to ask how they could find out about that growth rather than demanding that teachers be locked into some easy-to-report-by-paperwork method of making the state happy.













Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Selling the School

If you live outside a certain part of the US, the brand BBVA Compass may be unfamiliar to you, and if you are from an area served by BBVA Compass, you may think of them as just one more large, grim banking institution. 

Thanks to KIPP, that may be changing.


KIPP has sold the naming rights to its Houston campus for $1.8 million dollars to the Atlanta-based financial goliath.

The school itself will still be called KIPP Nexus, but the campus will be the BBVA Compass Opportunity Campus. This is a new school in the KIPP Houston chain opened this year with 90 kindergartners and 110 fifth graders. It joins the 28 Houston-area campuses and the 209 schools in the KIPP national chain.

The $1.8 million breaks down into a million and a half for capital projects and another $300K for operating expenses. This is reportedly BBVA Compass's largest adventure in education financing, with their "director of corporate responsibility and reputation" (yes, that's a thing) praising KIPP's "bar-none" and "spectacular" record of success.

This is not the first such venture in the Houston area. The Kinder Foundation (founded by former Enron executive Richard Kinder) sunk $7.5 million in the Houston ISD High School for the Performing and Visual Arts with the expectation that Kinder's name would be added to the title of the magnet school, but after a pushback from board and public members, the foundation released Houston ISD from the naming obligation.


Schools and school districts have sold out entered mutually beneficial partnerships with private interests before. There are plenty of school sports stadiums with sponsor names attached, and I suspect it would be impossible to count up the number of schools that use scoreboards which were "contributed" for "free"-- but with the company logo prominently displayed.


Charter schools have always depended upon the kindness of well-heeled strangers, though not often at the cost of naming rights. Is sponsorship of education a bad thing? We know that when the Koch brothers endow a college teaching position, they expect that school to teach the "correct" economic world view.

But what about K-12? Do we want our kids' school day to feature "Wal-Mart Presents the Spudville Junior High School"? If my child attends Exxon Senior High School, will she be allowed to learn about global warming? If my child's school is sponsored by Hobby Lobby, will she be required to learn that all non-heterosexuals are wrong and evil? IF we're a Disney school, am I forbidden to roll my eyes as I open class with the newest Disney trailer? Sponsorship is a tricky thing-- sponsors might not have to say a word if cash-strapped administrations decide on their own that nobody will be allowed to do anything that might spook the sponsors.

And how do these sponsorships do anything except widen the gap between haves and have-nots? In poor rural or urban communities where there are no deep-pocketed sponsors waiting to purchase show their support for schools, will the schools just fall further and further behind?

What if we break it down to the classroom level? Does Future Me end up starting the period by saying, "This Tuesday's lesson about participial phrases is brought to you by the folks at Tyson chicken-- nutritional swellness for your every meal." Or will I just play an ad? Must my students all write assignments with a Bic pen (the official pen of Franklin High School)? Do I get to wear a special teacher suit that's covered with logos, all NASCAR style? Do I get to negotiate my endorsement deals as a free agent, so that popular teachers get the best extra income by selling out like a soulless bandit entering productive partnerships with private business, or will the district negotiate all such deals so that I can look forward to a principal shoving a Pepsi logo hat in my face and saying, "You will wear this, or I'll put a letter in your file."

Mike Fe9niberg, co-founder of the KIPP conglomerate, says that the alternative id for corporate America to ignore K-12. I disagree. The alternative is for corporate America, along with the citizens of America, to pay a fair share of taxes to properly finance public education. Crazy talk, I know, but at least you can believe I mean it, because I have no sponsors paying me to say it.


Better Teacher Preparation

There are folks who believe that the problems with the teacher pipeline begin with college and university programs for preparing teachers in the first place. Are there ways that we could improve that part of the pipeline?

First of all, I'm not someone inclined to fight unconditionally for the traditional system, in part because I am not a product of it. My college experience was different in several key specifics:

1) My BA is in English, the subject I teach, on the theory that I should be as knowledgeable as can be about the subject I'm teaching. Because I was headed for teaching, there were a couple of English courses I was required to take. Beyond that, I emerged from college just as well-educated as any other English major.

2) I took only a couple of methods courses before student teaching-- however...

3) I took several methods courses while student teaching. Though my school was a small ruralish college, student teaching was in an urban setting (in my case, Cleveland Heights). We lived in a hotel in downtown Cleveland (corner of E9 and Superior) and took evening classes at a field office maintained by the school in that same hotel. My methods courses were taught by working classroom teachers, except for the one taught by the same professor who observed me while I was student teaching. This made the courses enormously practical ("So, this happened today. How could I have handled it. And this is what I'm planning in two days-- is this a good way to approach it?")

My home away from home back in the day
 4) I was observed at least once a week, sometimes for several class periods. Seriously. My professor knew some of my students by name.

5) My first year of teaching. I was a regular first year teacher to my district, but an intern to my college's graduate program. I still took classes at that same field office, and the same guy who watched me through student teaching checked in on me in my new classroom (just not so often).

That's the system that produced me, and every time I'm host to a student teacher, I'm again aware of how different many other teacher programs are. That said, there are many things that the current system does well, many things that are necessary for preparing the teachers of tomorrow, like the study of pedagogical methods, child development, and classroom management. I would still trust a person with a teaching degree and traditional certificate before I turned to someone who has nothing to offer except a pulse and a college degree in whatever.

So what would I change in order to make college programs more effective and useful?

1) Put working teachers in the driver's seat.

Education is the only professional field in which working, experienced professionals have no say in how people are trained for or admitted to the profession. Too many (not all, but too many) education courses are taught by people with no actual classroom experience. I don't care if you're a super-duper education researcher-- a whole lot of education research on "effective" methods and "proven" approaches is bunk, and the people who know the difference between the bunk and the non-bunk are working in classrooms.

I've known of education professors who worked as substitute teachers in their local districts. That's awesome. And as I, and people like me, approach the end of a teaching career, local college education programs ought to be calling us up and trying to recruit us for their program.

And no college education department anywhere should settle on a list of course requirements until a bunch of experienced working teachers have signed off on it.

2) Provide actual supervision and support for student teachers.

For a program to visit a student a mere three times for a brief drive-by is criminal-- particularly when the person doing the "observation" has never met the student teacher before that first visit. Visits should be extensive and often. Student teachers should be in some sort of setting (classroom, meetings, whatever) that allows them to seek and receive guidance as the student teaching is going on.

3) Address the underlying philosophies

Here's a major irony of the standards movement-- while we are supposedly shifting students to Really Understanding The Concepts behind what they're doing and not just performing tricks, we have shifted teacher education toward producing technicians, mechanics who just unpack a standard here, align a lesson there, and tighten some bolts on the meat widgets in the classroom.

Why are you teaching? What are your goals? What are your underlying assumptions about education, knowledge, human nature, human growth, and the values behind all of this? If you don't know the answer, you're just a worksheet deliver service utilized by a content delivery system.

4) Broadening the Pool

This is probably the hardest part, but it's important because so many states are trending in the wrong direction.  Too many places are responding to the teacher "shortage" by opening the door to any warm body that's willing to take the job. This will not work. They will continue to recruit people who have neither the training nor the ability for teaching, and the warm bodies will either leave quickly or stay and do a lousy job.

Meanwhile, by opening the door to any warm body, they devalue the profession and make it less appealing. The creation of fast food anybody-can-do-them jobs did not spark interest in culinary schools.

The "shortage" is simply a failure of states to make teaching attractive. Instead, they've transformed it into a job that offers little autonomy, little job security, lousy pay, general disrespect, and the chance, not to improve children's lives, but to read a script and prep the kids for a bad standardized test. This is not how you attract and retain the best and the brightest, or even people who would otherwise be drawn to teaching.

There's a big conversation to be had about teacher training programs, and we aren't having it, though I keep waiting. In the meantime, colleges looking to recruit for their teacher program staff know where to find me.