Living in Dialogue

Americans are awakening from several decades of spending and consumption with little to show for it. We are realizing that when we had the chance to engineer more efficient cars and put solar panels on the roof to harvest energy from the sun, we did neither, and as a result we are slaves to our addictions and in debt to support them.

Our schools have bought into the idea that we exist to feed the American Dream, which means our students must graduate from college, prepared for the six figure salary, the fancy car, the house in the suburbs (and the crushing education debt) that awaits them. Anything less is unacceptable as a goal. So they must have Algebra in the 8th grade (so they can fit in geometry, calculus and trigonometry courses in high school) and graduate from high school prepared for nothing less than a four-year college education.

Gone is vocational education. Anyone who advocates it runs the risk of being accused of harboring “low expectations” for our students. This ignores the fact that, according to a recent report from the Center for the Study of Jobs and Education:

The great numbers of high paying jobs of the future that are claimed to require college graduation and high academic skills for all high school students are a hoax. The majority of the jobs of the future in Wisconsin and the United States are low or average paying jobs that require short term or moderate-term on the job training and do not require high-level academic skills in academic areas, particularly in higher mathematics.

Furthermore, preparing students for future options other than college does not mean we ignore higher order thinking, and does not mean we do not teach them to strive for excellence. These things are not the exclusive domain of the college-educated. A skilled craftsperson solves hundreds of problems a day, and may take years to grow as an expert. Skilled technicians can earn just as much or more than college graduates as well, as this report from the Southern Regional Education Board makes clear.

There is something else we have lost. At the same time we have boosted the amount of higher math our students are required to take, we seem to have lost the most elemental common sense math from our schools – and our society. The past decade has seen people encouraged to borrow against the equity in their homes to make consumer purchases. This practice was sometimes even justified as “good debt,” because the interest is deductible.

Many of our students live in areas where neighborhood banks have closed, and the local financial institution is a check-cashing store, where you can get an advance on your paycheck and wind up paying more than 400% interest. These cash advance facilities are located almost exclusively in poor neighborhoods and near military bases. This easy money is a trap, and far too many of our students wind up getting caught.

And credit cards are an even easier temptation. According to this article in the New York Times, “Today, Americans carry $2.56 trillion in consumer debt, up 22 percent since 2000 alone, according to the Federal Reserve Board. The average household’s credit card debt is $8,565, up almost 15 percent from 2000.” Much is made of our imperative as teachers to prepare our students for college. It seems to me we ought to have an even more compelling imperative to prepare our young people to support themselves without becoming enslaved by debt.

When I look at my state’s math standards, I find that in the 6th grade students are supposed to learn to solve problems involving ratios and percents. How is it that they are graduating from high school not understanding what happens when they charge up their credit cards? I believe it is because these things are taught in the abstract, and practical applications are often ignored. Math applications are taught “so you can pass the test,” and that is a poor substitute for real learning.

We need a return to common sense when it comes to math, and to the potential of vocational education programs. There are fantastic math problems embedded in practical problems that can be posed by teachers working in real-world situations. When I taught 6th grade math, one year we hatched eggs in my science/math class. For science, we learned about the development of the embryo and the habitat the chicks would need. In math, my students designed chicken coops, and made scale drawings. Some even built three dimensional scale models. Students were engaged by the reality of the problems they were solving. New research in England is finding that students develop their brains in unique ways when they work with their hands in school.

In our schools, computer labs have taken the place of shop classes. This gives students access to useful writing and software tools, but something is missing. There is something magical about solving math problems to design something and then actually building it with your own hands. And vocational education is much more than a wood shop. Modern vocational education can include opportunities to use technology to care for the sick, design bridges, or prepare for careers in biotechnology. In my district, Oakland Technical High School has a Health and Bioscience Academy, a Computer Science and Technology Academy, and an Engineering Academy. The students that graduate from these programs may indeed go on to a four-year college, but that is not the only thing they will be prepared for.

Perhaps if we gave students more room to pursue real-world interests, and made school meaningful for those who might not be college-bound, we might have fewer of them drop out.

So what do you think? Should we revive consumer math? Is there room for vocational classes in our high school curriculum, or should our only goal be college for every child?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

A new report on the future of National Board certification has just been released, (download here) authored by a diverse national group of National Board certified teachers, including me. Perhaps it is not surprising that a team of 10 NBCTs could agree that the process is worthwhile. But our report is not blanket endorsement of the product; rather, it’s a thoughtful consideration of what the NB certification process has meant and could mean for teaching.

In developing a reliable way to identify effective teachers, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has accomplished something great for our profession. It wasn’t easy to arrive at, and the certification process is intense and rigorous, requiring teachers to provide solid evidence for how they are meeting the standards defined by the Board. That said, our group is not satisfied with the results the process has yielded. Although we have achieved recognition as effective teachers, the system does not seem to know what to do with us beyond giving us some bonus money and a certificate for the wall.

The report arrives at a time when “teacher quality” has been rediscovered by education policymakers. Teacher quality was never well-defined under NCLB. The law allows a person with a bachelor’s degree who is enrolled in a credential program and zero classroom experience to be defined as a “high quality teacher.” So now policymakers are scrambling to figure out how to promote real quality teaching. Unfortunately, many proposals seem to miss the point. We have learned some incredibly valuable lessons since the National Board was launched 21 years ago, and any policy to promote quality teaching needs to take these lessons into account.

• Quality instruction is based on core values that treasure every child as both a unique learner and also as a member of a classroom community.

• Teachers who look closely at evidence of student learning can use that information to guide instruction and give powerful feedback to their students.

• Teachers can improve their instruction when they collaborate, learning together how best to meet their students’ needs.

When you look closely at these things, you see that each of them requires teachers to be intellectually engaged, critically evaluating their students and reflecting on themselves and their practice. Further, you see that students benefit most when teachers are working as a team to build powerful learning across their grade level, school, district and state. Policies crafted in Washington, DC, and in our state capitals, tend to miss these critical marks, largely because they are designed to work in spite of teachers, rather than drawing on us as full partners.

As we worked on the report, our team spent a considerable amount of time discussing the teacher leadership role of NBCTs. We concluded that NBCTs themselves (rather than the NBPTS organization) have the ultimate responsibility to assert the value and importance of leadership roles for NBCTs in schools, districts and states. Local, regional and state NBCT organizations are in the best position to champion this leadership aspect of National Board certification – even as we recognize that teacher leadership is not the exclusive domain of NBCTs.

The most important part of the report may be contained in the preamble, which is an open letter to our fellow NBCTs, a call to action. It says, in part:

We cannot wait to be invited to the policy table. Nor can we wait for any organization or initiative to guide us, endorse us, or train us. We invite their support, but we must begin at once to find our own voices, to hone our core messages, and develop our own leadership ideas and muscle, both personally and collectively.

Let us act, not react.

If we continue to sit by and let others define effective teaching, we will always be reactors, not actors, on the school reform stage where the policies that control our daily work are played out.

This letter closes by posing a choice:

Will teaching become a technical occupation, staffed by a revolving-door cadre of entry-level knowledge workers who follow instructional templates and are judged by narrow data sets?

Or will we finally develop and realize a conception of teaching as complex, nuanced professional work, supported by a strong base of knowledge and constant inquiry, and marked by commonly accepted and rigorous standards of practice?

Although this open letter is addressed to NBCTs, its message clearly applies to all of us who consider teaching more than just a job. Teacher leadership is not just for NBCTs. We all need to learn how to lead if we expect to move forward.

So what do you think? How has the National Board process affected our schools? Have you found avenues open to you to exercise your leadership as a teacher? What is needed to strengthen teacher leadership?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A great deal of virtual ink has been spilled over the past week debating the merits of the California Board of Education’s decision to approve Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposal to require all 8th grade students to take Algebra.

Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Kerri Briggs revealed her thinking to the Associated Press, saying "Kids are dropping out because they're bored and they don't feel like there's enough challenge and expectations for them," she said. "This may be exactly what they need to help spur achievement."

This got me to wondering about the basis for this claim. The rising dropout rate has become everyone’s favorite reason for change. Is there research to support Ms. Briggs in this regard? Yes and no. I spent a few hours scouring the internet for research, and here is what I found.

This study summarizes the results of interviews with 500 dropouts, ages 16 to 25, and here are the reasons they gave for dropping out:

* 47% said classes were not interesting
* 43% missed too many days to catch up
* 45% entered high school poorly prepared by their earlier schooling
* 69% said they were not motivated to work hard
* 35% said they were failing
* 32% said they left to get a job
* 25% left to become parents
* 22% left to take care of a relative

Two-thirds said they would have tried harder if more was expected from them.

This would seem to support Ms. Briggs’ suggestion that we should make classes more challenging, and requiring Algebra would seem to fit the bill. But these are 16 to 25 year-olds -- far beyond the age that will be directly affected by this new policy. How will this affect middle school students?

There were some other studies which raise some flags we may want to give heed.

The California Dropout Research Project has released a study: What Factors Predict High School Graduation in the Los Angeles Unified School District?

Of the academic experiences this study explored, failing courses, especially Algebra 1, had a particularly severe impact on the likelihood of graduating on time. Approximately half (49%) of the students failed at least one core academic class (mathematics, English language arts, science, and social science) during their middle school years, and over three fourths of students (77%) failed at least one academic core course during their high school years.

According to this report by Gregory Woods,

Poor academic performance is the single strongest school-related predictor of dropping out.

So it would seem that it is critically important to not only give students the opportunity to take Algebra, but also to make sure they are adequately prepared for it, and well-taught during it. Because if they do not succeed, they will have failed the rigorous challenge we have placed before them, and this will increase the likelihood that they will not finish high school.

And this is where things get complicated. I work with science teachers in the Oakland schools, and I know that at the middle school level, approximately half of our teachers are in their first or second year. The turnover is similar for middle school math teachers. This means many students in our schools are taught by novices who lack the experience needed to provide a rich and engaging math curriculum -- and sometimes there are even taught by substitutes, who generally deliver a very poor quality of instruction . This article in the Los Angeles Times describes similar circumstances there. Furthermore, with the state budget in trouble, the schools are staring in the face of a $4.8 billion budget cut – proposed by the same governor who has brought us Algebra for every 8th grader. So we have what seems to me a big disconnect. Ever higher mandates for our students and schools, and ever-diminishing resources with which to meet them.

UPDATE: In September, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics issued a statement entitled "Algebra: What, When and For Whom."

It states, in part:

Algebra When Ready

Only when students exhibit demonstrable success with prerequisite skills—not at a prescribed grade level—should they focus explicitly and extensively on algebra, whether in a course titled Algebra 1 or within an integrated mathematics curriculum. Exposing students to such coursework before they are ready often leads to frustration, failure, and negative attitudes toward mathematics and learning.

All students should have opportunities to develop algebraic reasoning.

Algebra is an important gateway to expanded opportunities. Because of the importance and power of algebra, all students should have opportunities to learn it. With high-quality teaching and suitable support, all students can be successful in their development and use of algebra.

Update #2: A California judge has issued an injunction blocking implementation of the 8th grade algebra mandate. An article in the SF Chronicle states:

The preliminary injunction prevents the state from enforcing the Algebra I policy while the case proceeds through the legal process. It was scheduled to go into effect in three years.

While the legal arguments were based on technicalities, O'Connell's opposition to the requirement has been more firmly grounded in his belief that state schools wouldn't be able to get kids ready for the requirement without significant resources - up to $3.1 billion for more teachers and remedial instruction, among other costs. That's a 6 percent increase to the state education budget even as the Legislature considers widespread midyear cuts for schools.

"We cannot just tell our students and teachers the end goal and expect them to get there on their own," he said Friday. "Without additional funding, we're simply setting our students up for failure."

Update 3: Now, from Chicago, comes news that 9th grade Algebra for all is having many of the negative consequences discussed here:

While algebra enrollment increased across the district, the percentages of students failing math in 9th grade also rose after the new policy took effect.

By the same token, the researchers say, the change did not seem to lead to any significant test-score gains for students in math or in sizeable increases in the percentages of students who went on to take higher-level math courses later on in high school. While algebra enrollment increased across the district, the percentages of students failing math in 9th grade also rose after the new policy took effect.

So what do you think? Is Algebra for all 8th graders a good way to address the dropout crisis? What do we need to do to make this work?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 8:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBacks (0)

This week Barack Obama repeated his call for teachers to be paid for performance. He stated "Under my plan, districts will be able to design programs that give educators who serve as mentors to new teachers the salary increase they deserve. They'll be able to reward those who teach in under-served areas or take on added responsibilities. And if teachers learn new skills to serve students better, or if they consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well.”

I was involved in discussions and research on this issue last year, when I participated in the TeacherSolutions project, Performance-Pay for Teachers; Designing a System that Students Deserve. The report we wrote was the first to put forth the views of leading teachers from around the country. I think there is room for discussion here, and teachers should engage in an active dialogue about what these systems should look like. This is not a new idea, however, and we can learn a lot from mistakes that have been made in recent years.

I read an insightful comment in an online forum last week, from a colleague in Oakland, who works at one of our middle schools. She writes:

Here’s the big thing I think should be linked to performance pay. I absolutely believe that more experienced/more successful teachers who choose to teach in under-performing schools should be paid more. I am increasingly finding myself in a hopeless place in Oakland where I’m afraid that my conclusion is basically that schools here can’t improve significantly until the teaching force is more experienced; until the district can attract skilled teachers and retain the new ones who are lured here. I’ve been working on hiring at my school this spring. I’ve listed job postings all over the country, on alumni sites all over the country, I’ve done job fair after job fair, I’ve contacted teaching credential programs…and in the end, we had a pathetically tiny batch of teachers apply for positions. Most had never taught; a few had 1-2 years experience. All were women; none were African American (which is the majority of our student population). My school can advertise itself well; it has curb appeal—small class sizes, arts integration coach, instructional coaching (that’s me), individualized summer PD opportunities, a lot of ways for teachers to make extra money, a beautiful garden, safe neighborhood, etc. It looks good on paper. And even so, we couldn’t get any experienced teachers interested…When I talk to friends in other schools, they are seeing the same thing. We all end up with TFA teachers who leave after 2 years, or now in Oakland we have the Oakland Teaching Fellow or Oakland Teacher Corp, very similar to TFA and with just as high of a turn-over rate.

Since I’ve started coaching, I’ve been reminded of how little we know in the first few years of teaching. It’s humbling. And frightening. While it makes me think a lot about what teacher preparation programs need to look like, I also need to put that aside, roll up my sleeves and get into the teaching/coaching of our new teachers. I enjoy it; many are eager and spongy. But it’s really hard when they leave after a year or two, for grad school, another district, another position in education. And so over and over and over our kids get teachers who don’t really know what they’re doing.

We need experienced teachers; OUSD needs to be able to pay experienced and effective teachers (and I know we need to define what effective means) a LOT to come here, and a LOT to stay.

I agree with this perspective. Many of our experienced teachers play a critical role in our schools, offering essential guidance to novice teachers. Even the best-prepared novices struggle to respond to the challenges they face their first few years. And when there are too few with experience at a school, the burden becomes overwhelming, and the support network gets stretched past the breaking point. Then the novices are left to sink or swim, with little guidance. Our schools need defined roles for mentors, with solid compensation to support this work. Going beyond mentoring, we need to expand the roles that teacher leaders play, in collaborative planning, curriculum, assessment and instruction, providing more of a career ladder for our profession.

Teachers need to be full partners in the process of designing these systems. The objective should be to motivate and reward initiative and commitment to the profession, so we have to be sure the rewards activate and inspire, rather than divide and demoralize. The biggest mistake education reformers have made in the past decade was in viewing teachers (and our unions) as obstacles to be overcome, or even eliminated. Teacher leadership can transform our schools, but we must be given a voice for it to emerge.

So what do you think? Is there a place for alternatives to the traditional pay scale? Or should educators take a stand against such proposals?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 12:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBacks (0)