February 2011 Archives

A decade ago if you had come across the work of Diane Ravitch, you would have placed her squarely in the conservative camp. She served as Assistant Secretary of Education under president HW Bush in the early 1990s, and was a supporter of accountability through testing. She served on numerous conservative foundation boards and worked with the Hoover Institution to promote charter schools. When No Child Left Behind came along, she was a supporter.

But something happened that changed her mind, as she explained last year in an interview with me:

My epiphany around NCLB occurred in November, 2006, when I went to a meeting at the American Enterprise Institute to hear a series of studies of how NCLB was working. AEI is a conservative think tank and I assumed the papers would be celebratory. They were not, and at the end of the day, I concluded (and said publicly) that NCLB was not working. That had a big impact. My guess is that most people just go along with the conventional wisdom; it takes a lot of time and energy to arrive at a divergent opinion. Critics of NCLB must be wiser in making their case and must be clear in explaining its baneful effects, its lack of success, and the ways in which it undermines education.

There have been others who have distanced themselves from No Child Left Behind, and acknowledged its weaknesses. Even President Obama campaigned against it, and Secretary Duncan has abandoned the name in his efforts to get Congress to reauthorize the law. But Dr. Ravitch has zeroed in on the fundamental weaknesses in its approach, and applied a razor sharp critique to current policies as well.

in the Wall Street Journal last March she wrote:

The current emphasis on accountability has created a punitive atmosphere in the schools. The Obama administration seems to think that schools will improve if we fire teachers and close schools. They do not recognize that schools are often the anchor of their communities, representing values, traditions and ideals that have persevered across decades. They also fail to recognize that the best predictor of low academic performance is poverty--not bad teachers.

This outspokenness has placed Dr. Ravitch at odds with some very powerful people. An article in Newsweek last November called her Bill Gates' "biggest adversary."

At NBC's weeklong Education Nation extravaganza she was represented in a thirty second-long clip, and otherwise completely blocked from participating. Waiting For Superman director Davis Guggenheim refused to share the stage with her on any program.

Last year when I interviewed Dr. Ravitch, I asked her: "As someone who was once "inside" the administration, how would you suggest those of us concerned about this direction take action?"

Educators who see the handwriting on the wall must work through their organizations and urge them to make their collective voices heard. Alone, we are all powerless. Organized, we will be heard.

Many of us have responded to her call and are organizing the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action. Dr. Ravitch has endorsed this event and will participate in the conference preceding the march.

Recently she has spoken passionately about the many teachers who have been writing to her as a result of her advocacy. She has truly given us a voice in places where we have been silenced. And she is tireless in her advocacy. Here is a recent talk she made in Colorado:

Diane Ravitch will make a special appearance on The Daily Show in New York City this Thursday, March 3. Teachers and parents are invited to greet and support her in the street in front of the studios between 4 and 5 pm, 11th Avenue between 51st and 52nd Streets in Manhattan. This is a rare chance when our voices may break through the media blackout. Please tune in at 11 pm on Comedy Central, and if you are in New York City, drop by and show your support.

UPDATE: Diane Ravitch's CNN Editorial led to this NPR piece, Op-Ed: Rage Simmering Among American Teachers.

What do you think of what Dr. Ravitch has been doing? Is she your hero as well?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Newsflash: American science teachers are so afraid of controversy, so intimidated by students and parents who dispute the theory of evolution, that, according to this recent survey, more than half do not even take a stand on the issue with their students. And one in eight actually promote creationism. Only about 28% consistently teach evolution.

And from Tennessee comes the news that conservative lawmakers there are working on a law that will require science educators there to "teach the controversies" regarding evolution and climate change.

An article in Mother Jones describes the bill:

"The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy," the bill states. Further, the state will not prohibit any teacher from "helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

Update, Jan. 14, 2012: Republican legislators in Missouri have introduced a bill that will require K-12 teachers and introductory science courses at the college level as well to teach evolution. Meanwhile, over at the Washington Post, Jay Mathews has authored a rather unlikely post suggesting Rick Santorum should stay in the presidential race long enough to advance the idea that students should be taught that evolution is a controversial theory. Mathews believes this sense of dueling theories will "enliven" classrooms. He states "I think Darwin was right, but boring." By this logic, perhaps we can use Michelle Bachmann's understanding of the Founding Father's tireless fight against slavery to enliven history lessons as well. Valerie Strauss has posted a response to Mathews here.

I taught science for 18 years, and have some strong feelings about this. Evolution is the central organizing principle that guides our understanding of the entire field of biology. We understand modern species based on their history and genetic relationships to one another. This allows us to understand why we have so much in common with other forms of life - even ones that seem very different.

When I taught Life Science to 7th graders in Oakland, I found that evolution allowed us to make sense of the wonderful variety of animals that we studied. Before we went on field trips to the aquarium, we studied the fish we would see. Why do some have markings that look like eyes near their tails? Why are some flat like a pancake, and others shaped like sleek cigars? Each of these adaptations helped one or another species to survive and reproduce, by providing a competitive advantage.

This was not without controversy in my classes. I had students and parents alike challenge me. So I developed an approach that I described here a couple of years ago. In my science class, I explained, we base our understandings on evidence. Whatever we believe can be challenged by new evidence, and is always open to question. This is a different set of ground rules from those in effect at church. There, faith is the basis of understanding. And faith is not about evidence, and not open to question.

I think our students need a scientific understanding of the world, including the theory of evolution. To be clear, while evolution may be "controversial" in the public square, it is by no means controversial among scientists. The theory of evolution is central to understanding how species have changed over time, and is crucial in our understanding of physiology and medicine as well. Even practical sciences such as agriculture rely heavily on evolution to understand how crops and livestock have been bred, and how they interact with pests and pathogens.

What is more, students need to understand the rules by which science operates. Science does not have all the answers, by any means, but it gives us a way to accumulate evidence, test out new ideas, and predict what will happen in the future. This is extremely useful in this world in which our species has become so dominant and destructive as to threaten even the viability of life itself.

But we are seeing a political movement that wishes to misinform the next generation regarding these basic things. It is more than inconvenient to have a climate that is growing dangerously warmer. It threatens the market-based system that drives production ever forward. In the US the output of the economy is expected to grow by 2% to 5% per year - indefinitely! This is absolutely unsustainable given current modes of energy and resource uses, but any scientific data that contradicts this must be undermined and declared "controversial," even if it is completely factual.

The theory of evolution undermines another core value held by some conservatives, who believe that the Christian bible is literally true and ought not to be contradicted. They are entitled to their beliefs, and I respect those beliefs -- but they have nothing to do with science. If we, as teachers, tell our students that there is genuine scientific controversy over the theories of evolution and global warming, we are misleading them about the facts, and also creating confusion about the way science works.

Science is not determined by a popular vote. Scientists work very hard to not only investigate nature, but also to share their discoveries, challenge one another, and build consensus around ideas that have sufficient evidence. There are legitimate controversies in science -- based on disagreements about what the evidence shows. Challenges rooted in religious beliefs are not in this category. The theories of evolution and global warming have both endured rigorous scrutiny - and the scientific consensus is clear.

The proposed law in Tennessee, the state where the Scopes trial occurred 86 years ago, will require science teachers to inject controversies into science that do not belong there. This is a reminder of another reason teachers need protection for their ability to teach their subjects based on their expertise. Our unions are one of the best ways to protect this freedom.

What do you think? Should we "teach the controversies" of evolution and global warming?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I am going out on a limb here with some experimental thinking that was provoked by a recent commentary by a Berkeley professor of linguistics, George Lakoff. In this post, Lakoff offers a way of understanding the recent turmoil in Wisconsin, in the context of the conservative world view.

He writes:

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

In the past I have written about a sort of feminist understanding of the way teachers have been disempowered historically. We have a profession that is 80% female, working in schools where the principal is more often male, reproducing in some ways the authority structure of the home. If a student gets in trouble, off he is sent to the principal's office for discipline - the school's version of "just wait 'til your father gets home!"

In this context, the teacher has become a sort of "wife." And there is pressure on her to be a "good wife." The "good wife" must subordinate herself to the authority of the father, and enforce the rules the father has set forth. The rules are embodied in the tests the students must pass to gain official approval, and those who rebel are pushed out of school or have diplomas withheld. And schools, teachers and principals unable to coerce students to perform are likewise punished. While some teachers have raised moral objections to the test-and-punish regime set forth by No Child Left Behind, the profession - and our unions - have largely complied with federal and state mandates.

But what happens when the stern father becomes abusive?

Lakoff was writing about the situation in Wisconsin, where teachers and other public employees are being "disciplined" by Governor Scott right now. The stern father has crossed the line and is seeking to subordinate the wives completely, by destroying their ability to even advocate for themselves through collective bargaining.

Teachers in Wisconsin are in danger of becoming "bad wives," who defy the man of the house. To that, I say it is about time. And as long as we are pushing back, let's go all the way, and reject our federal government's stern father mandates in No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top as well. Some of us rebels are putting together a protest march in Washington, DC, this summer to Save Our Schools. Want to come?

What do you think? Are teachers too accustomed to being "good wives"? Is it time to break some dishes?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In the streets of Madison, and in solidarity events around the country an old song is being sung, one I have not heard for many years. I stood last night at the State Capitol building in Sacramento, California, and sang with several thousand others,

When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one But the union makes us strong

Solidarity forever, Solidarity forever Solidarity forever, for the union makes us strong!

And solidarity seems in short supply these days, everywhere but at these rallies. When Governor Walker in Wisconsin sought to strip public workers of their right to collectively bargain, he drew on divisions between ordinary folks. A few decades ago, a decent pension was expected for every person who worked their whole lives. But in recent years, as industries have shipped jobs overseas for higher profits, and our manufacturing base has dwindled, middle class jobs and the secure pensions that went with them have evaporated. Not coincidentally the portion of private sector workers in unions has greatly diminished. Why should these public employees get good pensions when the rest of the country lives in constant fear? Solidarity has been turned on its head. Instead of all aspiring to a secure retirement, those who lack it are resentful of those who have it.

Divide and conquer - the oldest trick in the book.

And now Michelle Rhee is about to bring another variation to state legislatures around the nation, with her group, Students First.

In a letter sent to members of her group, she writes:

Right now in schools across the country, the last teacher hired has to be the first teacher fired, regardless of how good they are. A teacher's performance plays no role in who stays and who goes. This policy, based on seniority rather than effectiveness, is referred to as LIFO (Last In, First Out) -- and it is crippling our schools.

We can't afford to pull highly effective teachers out of America's classrooms. This is just the beginning of a very important campaign. In the next few weeks, we will ask you to take specific actions to engage with your legislators. We need your help to save great teachers.

According to Rhee, it is not the cruel budget cuts that are crippling our schools - she takes these as a given. No, it is that familiar villain, the "bad teacher," who manages to cling to her job as a result of union rules that protect teachers by honoring their years of dedication, by an objective and fair system that says if you were hired first, you will have seniority. What does she propose instead? A system based on "effectiveness." And of course that means test scores.

Let's take the time to play this scenario out. Let's assume she has her way - as she very well may in some states, given the current climate. The school administrators will presumably be required each year to complete an evaluation which prioritizes a teacher's ability to improve test scores. This evaluation will then be used to RANK every teacher in the school in order of effectiveness - because we must have a ranking in order to use this for determining who will be laid off. Not only are teachers being placed in jeopardy every year based on unstable test scores, but they are placed in direct competition with one another. I find it hard to imagine anything we could do that would be more destructive than this.

It must be said that solidarity does not mean we blindly defend any and all of our colleagues, regardless of their ability to educate our students. We must support fair and open processes - like the Peer Assistance and Review programs in operation in many districts, that help identify and either improve or remove those who are ineffective.

When teachers design performance pay and evaluation reforms, we always find ways to ensure that competition is removed from the equation. If we are to be paid more for student gains, at least make it school-wide, so we can encourage collaboration. If we want to improve evaluation, lets do it together. Increase peer observations, and build on a culture of sharing and learning from one another. We want to work together - just as we want our students to learn from each other. And research shows this sort of collaboration is what drives real improvements in learning. Solidarity is not just for our unions. It is a fundamental stance that allows us to cooperate and improve together.

But we are seeing an ideology drive these reforms that is the polar opposite of this approach. Our answer must be clear. We must stand together as teachers young and old, veteran and novice. We who are true advocates of our students do not focus on fighting over who has the last handful of jobs in classrooms of fifty students. We go to our parents and community and say, "if we are for students first, we must fund our schools!" And we seek solidarity with others who have lost their pensions and secure jobs. These are things which everyone ought to have, so let's get together and aim for a higher common ground - rather than sharing a fate of misery. And let's bring this message to Washington, DC, next summer, at the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action.

What do you think? Is solidarity a useful tool these days for defending and improving our schools?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

What the heck is happening to teachers? Across the country, in state after state where Republicans gained power in the 2010 elections, teachers and our unions are being absolutely hammered. Tennessee, Ohio, New Jersey, Idaho, Florida - and as we all know, Wisconsin. But teachers in Wisconsin are showing us how to turn these attacks around -- just as teachers in Florida showed us last Spring when they defeated Senate Bill 6.

A few years ago, Naomi Klein wrote a rather prescient book, entitled The Shock Doctrine. Her central thesis was that in our current global economic system, people and corporations take advantage and even create crises, and then use these crises as opportunities to change laws in ways to their advantage. Circumstances in Wisconsin are lending credence to this, as she explained in this interview on MSNBC a day ago (starting at minute 4:29).

Klein offers the following insights:

The thesis of the book is that the right wing playbook is tremendously unpopular in most places, particularly when it involves rolling back benefits that people have fought for. Everyone likes a tax break, but people are going to protect hard-won public services, public benefits, labor rights. What I argue in The Shock Doctrine is that if you look at the thirty year history of the triumph of these policies around the world, what you see is that their great leaps forward happen during times of extreme crisis. And that's because in a time of crisis you have politicians able to do exactly what Scott Walker is doing right now in Wisconsin, which is to say "the roof is falling in, we have a state of emergency here. We don't have time for democracy or public or deliberation or collective bargaining."

So it becomes an opportunity to ram through these unpopular policies, many of which he did not campaign on - he campaigned on the popular stuff - the tax cuts, but he didn't say how he was going to pay for it. So lo and behold you have a budget crisis, you exaggerate the extent of the crisis and you say "we don't have any alternative" but to push through these very unpopular measures. Part of that really means constricting the democratic space, and that is why I think it's so significant that they are going after collective bargaining. Because it isn't just the particular roll-backs that they are after. They are trying to reduce the ability of participation of the workers in their own futures. It's a constricting of democracy. So it is pretty much a classic example of the Shock Doctrine

.

I end the book by saying the way you resist these tactics is by understanding that they are happening while they are happening. Because the reason these tactics work is that when you do have an economic crisis or another kind of crisis like a natural disaster or even a war, people are terrified, and they tend to put a lot of trust in their leaders - we saw this after 9-11.

What's happening in Wisconsin is an excellent example of what I describe as "shock resistance," because people are naming this while it's happening, they're saying "you're manufacturing a crisis so that you can exploit it." And the other thing they are doing is talking about all the other ways that you could fill that budget shortfall, besides this very narrow vision that we're seeing. This is a challenge to one of the original shock doctors, Margaret Thatcher, who's famous phrase was "There is no alternative." We're seeing people very loudly talking about the alternatives that are available.

We have all been in shock for a while. It is no coincidence that our schools are often declared to be "in crisis." The caricature that emerged from Waiting For Superman and other propaganda last year was part of a drive to undermine our public education system.

Earlier in the clip above, the Nation magazine's Chris Hayes explained:

The knives have been out for teachers' unions for a while. Some of that enmity is self-inflicted by bad work rules and bureaucratic paralysis, but that's not what's driving the massive and well-funded campaign we've seen across the country to destroy teachers' unions. What's driving it is the ultimate aim of permanently scrapping the model of public education that has sustained this country for years. Teachers' unions are the stewards of preserving public education, which is the core element of our civic life - of the collective democratic enterprise that is these United States. Conservatives have wanted to abolish public education in its current form for a while, and getting rid of the teachers' unions is a necessary first step.

As Naomi Klein suggests, the way to resist these shock tactics is to understand them as they are being employed. There is no shortage of money in our society. Everyone agrees that profits have never been higher. The trouble is that government funds have been diverted towards war, and at the same time taxation has shifted to the middle class, allowing a concentration of wealth that is extreme. Teachers and other public employees are not to blame for these crises, and cutting our already meager wages and benefits will not resolve them. This is a pretext for destroying our ability to even negotiate the conditions of our work - things like class size, for example, that directly impact the quality of education.

The teachers and other public employees in Wisconsin have done us a huge service. They have taken the first step in preserving our profession and our schools. I hope to meet some of them when teachers across the country gather July 28 to 31 in Washington, DC, at the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action.

And if you want a bit of inspiration, please watch this video created by University of Wsconsin media specialist Matt Wisniewski:

Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill Protest from Matt Wisniewski on Vimeo.

What do you think? Is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker an example of the Shock Doctrine at work? Are the teachers there good examples of shock resistance?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 1:40 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Today I bring you a post from a former teacher. Please read. Please listen. Please share.

Peggy Robertson

When I was twelve I read a book that changed my life. It was titled Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret. I read it again and again. In that book, I finally saw that someone out there understood me. Ultimately, we all desperately desire to be heard and understood. Expert teachers know this; they spend every waking moment trying to figure out what makes their students tick. We watch, we observe, we truly listen and we make changes based on our students' needs.

When I was in my twenties, and a new teacher, I read another book, The Dreamkeepers, by Gloria Ladson-Billings. It rocked my world. It made me cry. The book came at a crucial time in my career as a teacher. I worked at a school "across the tracks," in a town in southern Missouri. My students were mainly African-American and many were very poor. I, like many new teachers today, got placed in a school with high need, high poverty students. It was the best job I ever had. Gloria was the voice in my head helping me along the way. She was my mentor but never knew it. She understood.

On February 17th, I attended a presentation by Diane Ravitch here in Denver, Colorado. I wanted to have her sign my copy of her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, but I honestly couldn't do it. I was feeling so emotional and I knew I might unravel. Diane hears me; my experience is simply an echo of the voices of many educators out there today. She knows what today's teachers are going through. If Diane and I did talk, she would understand what was beautiful about my fifteen years in the education field as well as what was haunting. She would know why I am debating whether I should return to the education field or not. She reports the facts accurately. She is our collective voice. She listens.

Are you there, President Obama? It's me, Peggy Robertson, the voice of a former teacher. Are you truly listening? I must say, with respect, that it does not feel as though you are. I have felt hopeless during your presidency. This week, for the first time, I have hope. Watching the public workers of Madison, Wisconsin protest and ask to be heard made me sit up a bit straighter. The American people have a voice! I saw democracy in action. But are you listening? I now hear that they are asking you to join them. I hope you do.

But this is about more than Madison, Wisconsin. Madison is the first snowball. Once it starts rolling, it may be unstoppable. We've got a lot of mountains here in Colorado and I hope that snowball heads our way. The corporate education reform going on here is devastating.

My fifteen years as an educator were spent teaching in the elementary grades as well as supporting teachers and administrators in developing and refining effective instructional practices. During my five final years I suddenly became jaded. NCLB destroyed my spirit. I watched it's evil hand touch children, teachers, schools and districts.

I saw the strangle hold NCLB had on everyone. I tried to support teachers with all of the obstacles NCLB placed in our way. I watched Reading First fail. I saw principals come and go and schools get closed. I saw students caught in the crossfire. I saw the light go out in children's eyes when they were drilled continually for the state test. I worked with teachers who told me we needed to hurry up and help that child read (in kindergarten mind you) before a negative label was placed on that child; we were in a pressure cooker. I supported administrators in knowing what to look for when they observed and evaluated teachers; many of them did not know what they were seeing because they had not actually spent much time teaching. Or, they had spent time teaching subjects, such as Spanish, in a high school classroom and they were now being asked to evaluate elementary school teachers who were focusing on developing readers and writers. Such an irony - teachers evaluated by administrators who haven't taught what the teachers are teaching. The administrators were under immense pressure as they are today. The scores simply had to be good.

When I left the education profession I left angry. My beliefs about education had been trampled on. I didn't believe in what I was being required to do. Too much testing. Too many young children not being allowed to be children. Too much data being shoved down everybody's throats. I have stayed home the last four years with my youngest son, and I have watched the destruction of our American school system continue. My youngest child is ready to start school, and I wonder if I should re-enter the education profession. But, do I really want to enter the lion's den? I want to work in the education field again, but I also want to be heard and respected.

The current corporate reform taking over our public schools is handing us many more teachers, administrators and superintendents who will need immense support to do their jobs well. If the new administrators haven't taught, then how in the world can you expect them to evaluate teachers? How is a former army sergeant, now made superintendent, supposed to evaluate and support administrators? How is a teacher with five weeks training expected to support our neediest students? And, (lucky us) we have the Bush Institute training principals, in cooperation with Teach for America of course! It's insulting. All of it - it's a slap in the face to students, educators and parents.

It appears there is no point in getting a degree in education with the TFA program leading the way. And then we are told that our master's degrees are pointless too? I think about that every month when I pay my student loan bill. And this week, my eyes rolled back in my head when I heard that the U.S. Department of Education just gave fifty million dollars to the TFA program. The TFA program is a band-aid. And it hurts the neediest children when those teachers leave after their two-year contract has ended.

In your State of the Union Address you asked for more college students to go in to education. I'm sorry, but I seriously laughed when you said that. I would pay both my children money to stay out of the education field right now. It's a hostile environment. Teachers have to teach to the test. The new common core standards are developmentally inappropriate. Children get labeled as failures before they've even finished kindergarten thanks to the pressures of NCLB. And let's not forget that those five year olds don't get a nap or a recess or time for imaginative play. RTTT is punishing to teachers and to schools. Encourage my children to enter the lion's den to teach? No thank you. Your administration has shown no respect for educators, parents or students.

Are you listening Obama? The strangle hold of RTTT may result in the death of public education. Have you read Ravitch's book? Have you followed any of the research being shared on expert educator blogs across the country? What do you really know about TFAs? Merit pay? Value-added assessment? Standardized Testing?

News Flash - it's all bad. Why are you listening to Gates? What educational credentials does he have? It is so difficult to have a voice as a teacher. We don't have a lot of money so we can't buy the media, such as the new Media Bullpen, like Gates can. But we can march. And march we will. July 28th to July 31st concerned citizens will find their way to Washington D.C. to take part in the Save our Schools March and National Call to Action. Will you join us? Will you listen?

When I voted for you I voted with my heart and soul. I believed everything you said. I thought you heard me. I thought we had found a president that truly understood the needs of the American people. I don't believe that anymore. There has been too much damage done. We now have Arne Duncan (a non-educator) leading the way with the corporate reformers whispering in his ear. We have more testing, more teacher bashing and more children being hurt at the hands of corporate reform.

Are you there President Obama? Did you hear Stephen Krashen talk about poverty? Again and again? Did you hear that our international test scores are actually excellent when we look at the scores of the children not living in poverty? Do you really believe poverty has nothing to do with the woes of our public schools? Have you read the research? I could provide all the links but it doesn't seem necessary considering they are all over the internet on every single education blog I read. I don't think you are listening. I think it's going to take an uprising for you to hear us. Madison, Wisconsin, is speaking.

I am placing my faith in the American people. I am listening Madison, Wisconsin. I signed the letter. You are speaking for all of us. President Obama, please listen. Please renew the hope we all had when we elected you.

Peggy Robertson
Former Educator
Centennial, Colorado

Peggy Robertson taught kindergarten, first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth grade, beginning her career in Missouri and continuing in Kansas, for a total of ten years. She was hired by Richard C. Owen Publishers in 2001 to serve as a Learning Network Coordinator and spent the next three years training teacher leaders and administrators in educational theory and practice in the state of Colorado, as well as around the country during the summer months. In 2004 she was hired as the Literacy Coordinator by the Adams 50 School District in Westminster, Colorado. While working in Adams 50 she mentored teachers and administrators and supported them in the writing and implementation of school development plans.

What do you think? Are you ready to sign on to the letter from Madison?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I recently featured a conversation between a former Teach For America intern and his mentor, Dave Greene. Today, we have a follow-up post from Mr. Greene, expressing some of the frustration many of us feel as a result of the current direction of education in America.

"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" (Howard Beale, Network)

Apparently many of us need to say this more and say it out loud and in public. I am so fed up; I am even willing to quote Spiro Agnew. "The nattering nabobs of negativism" who influence education policy need to be halted. Teachers teach. Well-trained teachers teach better. Great teachers change lives. Tests don't. Why then are we so linked to tests (and poorly devised ones at that) as the sole measure of accountability? Several authors have theories. Many (like Diane Ravitch) point out that over the past two decades education policy has fallen into the hands of policy makers bred and influenced by major corporations and the foundations they support. The Gates Foundation (Bill recently called for the end of master degree requirements and pay increases for gaining more knowledge and expertise. Of course, isn't he a college drop out?) and The Fordham (not University) Institute are two good examples.

They still live by the standard of industrial America developed a full century ago by Frederick W. Taylor. Captains of Industry (Robber Barons) supported Scientific Management, as it was called, in order to make their employees more productive. Sound familiar? Today's policy makers want to turn teachers into industrial employees churning students out like Ford workers churned out model T's. Taylor and his followers turned efficiency into the justification for such changes. The industrial leaders of the day believed implementation of scientific management would benefit both workers and society at-large. Today's policy makers have bought it hook line and sinker. Look at today's best example. New York City schools are totally controlled by a financial "Captain of Industry" and his newest henchwoman, Kathie Black. Nowhere more than in NYC is "Taylorism" being used to run schools.

I see two notable problems with this approach. First, kids aren't identical mass produced Model-T's. They aren't PCs either. They are human beings. Second, teachers aren't industrial machines. They are professionals like doctors, lawyers, accountants, and yes, even MBA granted businessmen. They need to be treated as such. Or are we suffering another Industrial disease? (with apologies to Mark Knopfler and DIre Straits).

Barry Schwartz, of Swarthmore College, writes and talks about "Practical Wisdom." It seems that with all the hoopla about education reform and who is right about what it should look like, the powers that be simply keep overlooking practical wisdom - do the right thing the right way for the right reason. It seems they are only concerned with who is right about deciding the right way. And, it seems, once getting the power to decide their way is right they set up iron clad rules to exclude other ways. This systemic approach also appeals to reformers because it is supposedly "fool-proof". So any teacher who can follow the model can do it. No tinkering, thinking, or practical wisdom required.

Detailed procedures or scripts are created to ensure that young inexperienced teachers, more and more TFA recruited, will fit right in to the "right" system's "right" way of doing education "right". These scripts also theoretically ensure that more experienced poor, mediocre, fair, or even fairly good teachers get on board with the program the "right" way. However what do these prescribed scripts do to the very best creative and successful teachers who do not fit into the new "right"? Do they stop doing what worked extremely well? Do they stop using their practical wisdom?

According to Schwartz, one of the reformers' new right ways is behavior modification using incentives and negative sanctioning. They believe that, in our market based educational reform scheme, self-interest (or selfishness) will get everyone to do the reformers' right things. So we offer bonus pay for higher test scores and threaten loss of job for lower test scores as if the test scores on poorly designed tests actually matter as much as the market based educators think.

Guess what? Psychologists know that doesn't work with kids or adults. They know it simply changes what is important to them. It changes the rules of the survival game. So, most teachers, being easily swayed by the incentives, simply stop helping kids learn and ensure they do well on the tests. These are not the same goals or achievements.

In a talk Schwartz did for TED.com, entitled Using Our Practical Wisdom, he tells a story about Aristotle.

"Aristotle was very interested in watching how the craftsmen around him worked. And he was impressed at how they would improvise novel solutions to novel problems -- problems that they hadn't anticipated. So one example is he sees these stonemasons working on the Isle of Lesbos, and they need to measure out round columns. Well if you think about it, it's really hard to measure out round columns using a ruler. So what do they do? They fashion a novel solution to the problem. They created a ruler that bends, what we would call these days a tape measure -- a flexible rule, a rule that bends. And Aristotle said, hah, they appreciated that sometimes to design rounded columns, you need to bend the rule. And Aristotle said often in dealing with other people, we need to bend the rules."

The moral of this story is obvious. We need wise teachers, not scripted robots. As Schwartz put it in his TED talk, "A wise person knows when to improvise. And most important, a wise person does this improvising and rule-bending in the service of the right aims."

Weren't your best teachers those who had this practical wisdom? Weren't they the ones who had character, along with certain principles and virtues that you may have not appreciated at the time? Weren't they the ones who obviously loved their work and you as a result? Weren't they the ones who almost always seemed to do the right things for the right reasons, the right way? And weren't they usually creative and different from everyone else.

David Greene is a former Social Studies teacher and coach in NYC, Woodlands HS, and Scarsdale HS. He presently is a field supervisor for Fordham University, mentoring Teach For America interns in the Bronx. He is a staff member of WISE Services, an organization that helps high schools create and run experiential learning programs for seniors. He is an advisor to the Foundation For Male Studies, a HS football coach, and a member of the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action Organizing Committee.

Mr. Greene has been referenced by Christina Hoff Sommers, in her book, The War against Boys. He has given talks on the issues of boys in schools in Scarsdale and for Dominican College. He assisted in the organization of The Foundation For Male Studies' Second Annual Conference On Male Studies: Looking Forward to Solutions. He has had work published in Ed Week on line and has also been referenced by Valerie Strauss in her Washington Post web based column, The Answer Sheet. Finally, he is a regular contributor to The Teachers Talk Back Blog and is also currently working on a book tentatively titled, So You Think You Know Education? A Teacher's Perspective.

What do you think? Have we traded practical wisdom in our drive to make education efficient?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Marie Levey Pabst offered a provocative comment to my recent post about Teach For America, so I asked her to expand her thoughts a bit more. This is the result. She is a 2004 TFA alum, who taught in Oakland, California, for three years before moving to the east coast. She is currently a high school English teacher in Boston Public Schools where she also spent a year as a literacy coach. Her blog is An English Teachin' Vegan.

As a TFA alum myself (currently in my 7th year of teaching) I have seen some of the problems that Mr. Cody pointed out in his post "Does Teach for America Deliver Systemic Education Reform?" I especially agree with the point that TFA has fallen into the trap of viewing test scores as the measure of student and teacher success. I felt similar pressure to get my students to "perform" in 2004, and I hear it has only gotten worse. However, I feel the same pressure now from my principal, and I teach in a school with no TFA representation (but still in a low-income urban community). I think that this focus on test scores is a far more pervasive problem, as Mr. Cody has pointed out in the past.

However, I have heard from many critics that one of the main problems with TFA is that its teachers leave too soon. From my experience, TFA has never really been about creating teachers (although they have spun their message to get funding). TFA is about taking people who would, they assume, become leaders in some form in our country, and putting them in schools where they see education inequality first-hand, in the hopes that these same leaders will then go on to do something to improve educational equality with this important understanding. TFA has never been about creating teachers - that is often just a "lucky" byproduct. To be honest, I'm a bit tired of hearing how we have to get people in classrooms longer, when that would happen our country really decided that it valued teachers, and provided the pay, support, etc. that went along with it. As Mr. Cody said, TFA is a stopgap.

What I don't hear people talk about as much, which bothers me, is the fact that students of color really become "training material" for mostly middle and upper class white "leaders." This is a phenomenon that bothers me a lot as a TFA alum. As a white teacher teaching primarily students of color I face many of the dilemmas that other white teachers face (TFA or otherwise). Whether I like it or now I carry white privilege with me into my classroom, and because of that white privilege I have definitely made faulty assumptions about what my students think, believe or have access to.

However, the issue I want to discuss is this aspect of TFA that involves the "training" of future leaders. As mentioned before, TFA is really (as far as I understand) about sending "future leaders" into schools where they see the issues of education inequality first-hand. What this often results in is middle and upper class white folks going into schools with large populations of students of color, teaching for a few years (3 or 4 would be considered a long stay by some) and leaving to go onto positions of leadership in our society.

Many of my fellow TFAers work incredibly hard and create really important and long-lasting relationships with their students, and that is fantastic. But there is still a big problem, in my mind, when one of the best solutions we, as a country can come up with, to help close the education equity gap, is to send the elite and privileged to the "other side" to see how bad things are. TFA has received a lot of recognition and funding from our federal government, and other programs (such as the New York Teaching Fellows) seem to have been modeled after TFA's recruitment strategy - get the best and the brightest our universities have to offer and put them in high-need schools.

However, many of the participants in TFA are, like me, beneficiaries of white privilege. And part of that white privilege involves the fact that we get to go into school, see how the "other" side lives, and then we get to leave. If this was happening in a few places it would still bother me, but what really makes me nervous is that our country seems to be saying (with funding and similar recruiting programs) "This is the way we can fix education - send in the (white) elite."

Fundamentally, I believe that the glorification of TFA, and the "super teacher" myth in general, creates a distraction from the real problem. Our country has a huge gap between the lower and upper economic groups, and that gap is widening, not shrinking. If we as a country really believe that sending in privileged folks to see how the "other" side lives is part of the solution to our education problem I think that is denying collective ownership of the problem of inequality and it is also ignoring what the folks we are "helping" have to offer.

While I certainly don't know the answers to this fundamental dilemma of inequality in education and society, I wonder what it would look like if TFA and other teacher programs recruited more heavily at smaller state universities in addition to (or maybe instead of) some of the more elite schools. I know that TFA has worked really, really hard in the past years to improve the diversity of its corp, but it seems as though TFA (and our country) still believe that the elite will solve our problem - and the reality is our elite is mostly white. Maybe we need to start recruiting tomorrow's teachers in my 10th grade class now, offer them money for college if they promise to teach after they graduate for a number of years. If our teacher recruitment programs are going to have high turnover anyway let's put people into classrooms who have lived "the other side," not just folks who are stopping by for a visit.

What do you think of Marie Levey-Pabst's perspective? Are students of poverty and of color served well by Teach For America-style programs? Or should we place our emphasis elsewhere?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The phrase "tough love" is a strange one. It usually describes treating someone harshly but in their own best interest. So when, as parents, we force a child to go to bed before they want to, or to stop playing video games and start doing homework, that might fit the term. But the term has also been applied to teachers and schools recently. When the entire staff of a Rhode Island high school was fired last year, this was also called "tough love."

In fact that term is often used to describe the four options now available to schools in the dreaded "bottom 5%." As President Obama pushes to renew No Child Left Behind, several key things will change. First, the toxic moniker will be dropped, and the law will return to its original name, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Second, the absurd timetable that required every student in the nation be proficient by 2012 will go away, and along with it the concept of Adequate Yearly Progress, the constantly rising test score benchmarks that schools must meet to avoid being labeled failures. To hear Secretary Duncan talk, you might think the Department had learned some important lessons. In recent speeches he has said that the No Child Left Behind law punishes underperforming schools and is too narrowly focused on testing.

The abandonment of AYP will allow most schools to escape some of the pressure to constantly raise test scores, and that is a good thing.

Duncan has made it clear he understands this sort of punitive approach has not worked, and has led to what he describes as a narrowing of the curriculum, and teaching to the test. But for some reason, he still feels this punitive approach is useful for the bottom 5% of the schools. It is as if we had a class of students, and we decided that encouragement and rewards will work for most of you, but for the few incorrigibles, we will still have to use the belt. The Blueprint that the Department has issued to guide reauthorization continues to offer four punitive alternatives for the bottom 5% of the nation's schools.

• Fire the principal and at least half the staff.


• Close the school and reopen it as a charter


• Simply close the school and send students elsewhere.


• Fire the principal and engage in extensive reform

The schools in that bottom 5% are being separated from the rest of our schools for this special treatment. If these approaches had a track record of success, then this might be justifiable as "tough love." Unfortunately, they have not. Not in Chicago, where Duncan closed down 61 schools, and studies showed that the students who were moved to different schools did no better. Not in Rhode Island, and not in Los Angeles either. This treatment is tough, but it does not much resemble love.

Last summer I shared a proposal from Congresswoman Judy Chu, who showed us how we might support struggling schools to become stronger. Her proposal takes into account the challenges students and staff at these schools face. One hundred percent of these schools are attended by children living in poverty and violence. As was described here:

With respect to addressing barriers to learning and teaching, Chu's report emphasizes that learning supports need to be organized into a comprehensive system for a full continuum of interventions to enable every school to better address barriers to learning and re engage disconnected students. She outlines that key strategies include:

• building teacher capacity to re engage disconnected students and maintain their engagement


• providing support for the full range of transitions that students and families encounter as they negotiate school and grade changes


• responding to, and where feasible, preventing behavioral and emotional crises


• increasing community and family involvement and support


• facilitating student and family access to effective services and special assistance as needed.

We must show teachers at our most difficult schools our appreciation for the challenges they are taking on, and give them the support they need, not pretend to be giving them "love" in the form of firing them.

On this Valentine's Day I declare my own appreciation and love for the teachers who have chosen to work in our toughest schools. And I will be joining with others in marching on Washington, DC, this July 28 to 31, to support a change in policies. What Secretary Duncan said - that NCLB has been far too punitive, is true for ALL our schools, including those in the poorest neighborhoods. We must have an ESEA that delivers support, not firings, to the schools with the greatest needs.

Please check out the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action's new website! And sign up there to keep informed about activities in your area.

What do you think? Are the four options for struggling schools "tough love"? Or should we find some better ways to support them?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Today I am sharing part two of a two-part essay contributed by educator Betsy Angert. Ms. Angert is a creative educator who taught Secondary School and University students. She also served to instruct and supervise future Educators in the Teacher Credentialing Program. She now hosts the web site Empathy and Education.

In an earlier essay, Those Who Can Teach; Life Lessons Learned, thoughts on the ever-present influence of George Bernard Shaw's philosophy were evaluated. A personal reflection, perchance, helped advance an analogy. We each are as the Playwright was. When young, we learn through our experiences. Later, we are forever challenged to change our perception. Evolutions and beliefs born in emotionally trying times collide. Intellectually, we may understand, to learn our minds must be open. Nonetheless, endeavor as we might, most of us remain closed. Still, it is never too late. Greater awareness can come at anytime, in Elementary, Middle, High School or College. Let us assess anew as we look through the lens, life in school.

He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches
~ George Bernard Shaw [Man and Superman, 1903]

"A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education."
~ George Bernard Shaw

George Bernard Shaw's adage belies what was the Playwright's life. The Author, contrary to his own claim, taught and he did. Indeed, the Dramatist achieved success in each of these endeavors. In words and through deeds the Writer acted on what he avowed were opposite ambitions. His instruction influenced generations. More than a century after his utterance children are trained to believe as he professed true. Several ignore the veracity; Shaw's prolific plays proved that he could successfully and professionally practice in a field as well as serve as the exemplary Educator he was, and is. Regardless of the misguided reality today crowds continue to chant, "He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches."

As evidence of this collective less than reflective conviction Americans might merely look at the headlines. Are Teachers Under Attack? G.O.P. Governors Take Aim at Teacher Tenure. Public Workers Face Outrage as Budget Crises Grow. Education under Attack: Violence against Students, Teachers and Schools in Armed Conflicts. Teachers are forever being questioned. Students receive much wrath. Schools are vilified. Yet few consider why these criticisms might be.

Instead, we repeat the rhetoric and share our own stories. I have my memories. Countless tales could have led me to perceive Professors as, George Bernard Shaw did and society does. Instead, I acknowledged that what, for me, felt good or bad was a blessing. Persons whose pedagogical practices would never be mine, taught me how, or how not to teach. I offer tales of two Teachers. Enter Doctor Mac and Miss Z.

I think of my first computer class. Doctor Mac, a glorious geek who could build a central processing unit [CPU] with ease. However, to edify the technologically illiterate such as I was . . . Well that is another story for another day. I am aware that many thought Doctor Mac was the preferred Professor. For someone as infinitely analytical as I, his more superficial treatment of the subject did not work well for me. This magnificent master is one of many who were unable to reach me. Quite the contrary was true. His methods and instruction left me feeling lost. I was more than frustrated. I was frightened. I so yearned to learn!

This thought brings Miss Z to mind. I had been beyond proficient in Math all of my life until this wiz with numbers became my Teacher. The jocks loved Miss Z and she was fond of them. In class, the Educator and the athletes discussed how their respective teams did. Scores. Stats. "Sports" was a constant topic of conversation. Proofs, sometimes. Some Math problems were shared on the board or on displayed by the light of an overhead projector. I was an A+ Math student. Yet, under the tutelage of Miss Z, nothing made sense to me.

Before, during, and after class, I asked for further instruction. I sought other sources, my parents, another Professor, and even Miss Z herself. My Mom and Dad tried to assist to no avail. Their skills in math lacked luster. The other Teacher said unless I was enrolled in her class . . . Oh, how my family and I tried to make that dream come true. Miss Z? Well, she only knew how to teach in the way she always had. Her manner was incompatible with my learning style. I would stand at her side, look on and listen. Ultimately, each time, I left her presence in tears.

Thankfully, Teachers such as Doctor Mac and Miss Z were the exception in my life. Most Instructors I met once enrolled in an educational institution were glorious. On occasion, outside of school, and not only in my childhood home, I was confronted with what also might have shaded my reality. Perchance, you can relate.

I discovered that a stupendous Teacher can also be a disastrous one, dependent on the lesson. A phenomenal practitioner can be less than fully effective. Eric had been an exceptional Teacher in my life.. The man who was my beau was also an excellent driver. I trust he still is. Eric learned to use a manual transmission early in his own hours on the road. By the time we were together he was a pro. Eric could shift gears flawlessly. He did not bump or grind, nay pop a clutch. This lovely man is in addition a patient professor. Cheerfully, he chose to teach me. Eric Smythe would move me from automatic to stick shifts, or so he and I believed.

I imagined he would be, as in every other avenue we traveled together, a fine facilitator. However, this turned out not to be true. The loving man was thorough in his "lessons." Too thorough for me! I felt as if he believed he needed to teach me to steer, turn, and travel the roadways as though I had not done this for years.

I, who received an A+ grade in Drivers Education, was treated as a neophyte. While Eric was patient with me, the young Mister Smythe drove me bonkers. He, too carefully, crafted his lesson.

Eric could do and teach. Nonetheless, this combination was not enough. Trained Teachers take the art and science of instruction seriously. Professors understand the gravity of their performance. Expert Educators never forget that what a Teacher imparts influences more than a single person. His or her words and deeds will likely affect generations, perchance all of humanity. Notes from former and present pupils remind a Teacher at most every turn. Often a glance from a frustrated student, from one fond of learning, or a gaze off into space during a lecture, tells a tutor in the immediate that every moment matters.

Unlike George Bernard Shaw, I often say, "Those who can, Teach!" Education is an art and science. More than hand-eye coordination is required. Task analysis too is not enough to teach. Facts, formulas, and figures do not offer focus. Fellowship must follow. An instructor is not as a friend, whom students engage with for fun. He or she, when devoted to excellence in education, is so much more.

We learn from words. Actions too deliver a message. Communications and contact inform us. When an Author writes, a Performer presents, a relative rants, rages, or roars with laughter, he/she advances awareness. The intended quality of the instruction does not determine whether a lesson is learned. Care and compassion count.

The mind is no match with the heart in persuasion; constitutionally is no match for compassion.
~ Everett M. Dirksen [Senate Minority Leader 1959 ~ 1969]

We all have had poor Teachers. Some are known as Parents others Peers. Even progeny and Playwrights offer instruction. What separates Teachers from the rest of these Educators is a philosophical preference, awareness for what George Bernard Shaw and society-at large misses.

Several sage scholars have devoted a lifetime of study to pedagogy, patience, and principles that further empathy through education. These persons practice profound theories that others do not feel they have time let alone tolerance to pursue.

Educators have lived, learned, and to this day understand, our experience of Teachers is unique. What is dreadful for one student is delightful for another, Instructors dare to challenge the myth that lives large in our lexicon. They brave a collective consciousness and verve that states Shaw's statements are wise. The thought Teachers cannot do, while our standard, is flawed. A deeper reflection reveals the dynamism that is on display daily.

Perhaps, as a nation we might ponder the damage done when Parents, policymakers, and pundits posit; Educators are know-nothing, do-nothing. less than motivated individuals. Might we consider how the theme discourages children, let alone Educators? A young mind could easily question why should I go to school only to sit with a failure?

Could it be that toddlers and tots are wounded when in a desire to criticize, Moms and Dads mention the maxim in regards to an Instructor. Might we as a society have given birth to many a self-fulfilling prophecy and a generation of students at risk?

Might we embrace careers in education and those who take on the identity of Teacher.

If we had, imagine what society could have been. Instead of a culture that adopts evidentiary erroneous beliefs as our truth, or a country commonly known as a dropout nation, we might have given rise to students who soar.

Possibly, beginning today we will agree, each of us had mentors who were accomplished in their field. We had and have excellent Educators. Most of us also had more than our fair share of miserable mentors. "He who can, did, does; and teaches." Indeed, we are all great Teachers to someone. We have no choice; we can do nothing else. For as living, breathing beings, we constantly engage and exchange. We share ideas and inspire others. That by definition is education.

References and Resources . . .

• Are Teachers Under Attack? MSNBC. September 26, 2010
  
• >G.O.P. Governors Take Aim at Teacher Tenure, By Trip Gabriel and Sam Dillon. The New York Times. January 31, 2011
  
• California schools chief reacts to U.S. criticism on teacher evaluation, . The Los Angeles Times. July 29, 2009
  
• Public Workers Face Outrage as Budget Crises Grow, By Michael Powell. The New York Times. January 1, 2011
  
• He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches The Phrase Finder
  
• The Playwright In Spite of Himself. George Bernard Shaw: Man, Superman, and Socialism. By Laurie Morrow. The World & I. 2003
  
• Teacher performance pay alone does not raise student test scores. By Melanie Moran. Vanderbilt News. September 21, 2010
  
• Motivating Students. By Barbara Gross Davis. University of California, Berkeley. September 1, 1999
  
• One Third Of Urban Students At-Risk For Dropping Out, By Sarah Birnbaum. WGBH. November 30, 2010
  
• The biggest flaw in Gates value-added study, By Valerie Strauss. The Washington Post. January 14, 2011
  
• Critics Cite Flaws in Los Angeles Times Teacher Ranking, By Cynthia McCabe. The Los Angeles Times. August 20, 2010
  

Photograph used with permission. Copyright © Bob George

What do you think? What is it that allows a teacher to reach you?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Today I share part one of a two-part essay by contributor Betsy Angert. Betsy is a creative educator who taught Secondary School and University students. She also served to instruct and supervise future Educators in the Teacher Credentialing Program. She now hosts the web site Empathy and Education.

He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches
~ George Bernard Shaw [Man and Superman, 1903]

"A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education."
~ George Bernard Shaw

I heard the words for as long as I recall. The meaning was intricately woven into my mind. I, as all little children since George Bernard Shaw scribed his belief, "He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches," was taught to believe that Teachers could choose no other career. Educators, entrusted with children's lives were indeed, incapable beings. These individuals had tried and failed to perform well in professions that required intellect and, or dexterity. Because the incompetent were inept, they fled to schools and identified themselves as "Teachers." In classrooms, less than sage scholars could teach with little authentic expertise. Today, as a culture, Americans choose to prove this erroneous truth. Grading the Teachers: Value-Added Analysis.

Happily, our fellow citizens dismiss the "scientific" evidence that amasses. In our stupor we embrace Value-Added Analysis disregard the research revealed in a 2010 Department of Education report, Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance, "Consideration of error rates is especially important when evaluating whether and how to use value-added estimates for making high-stakes decisions regarding teachers."

Americans do as they have done for well over a century; they look to those they love for guidance and validation, be it George Bernard Shaw or the Gates Foundation. One loosely proclaims Teachers are incapable. The other spends $45-million dollars only to assert what his organization hoped to prove, Study supports teacher ratings. Yet, in truth the findings are extremely flawed. Thus, is the logic of learning. As a society rarely do we reflect upon the original source of the "sage" wisdom we subscribe to.

The "Decline Effect" escapes us. Might it be that ignorance is bliss? Perchance, in regards to lessons learned, and unlearned, it is.

How Do We Learn or Unlearn?
Let us begin with a look behind the statement that sways the public, the story of George Bernard Shaw. Historical records reveal, the Playwright loathed his primary Professor, his father. Possibly, this detail supports my own truth, and perchance yours. A number of those who provided lessons never knew they did. Moms are mentors. Dads are guides. It is why any of us may accurately muse, "more is caught than taught." George Bernard Shaw learned from a master he detested. Thus, as a child, Shaw concluded, those who counsel are not qualified to give advice.

I acknowledge, a few erudite individuals had no idea they taught or that they were my best tutors, even by being the worst. This is true in homes and equally the case in classrooms. Even in exchanges with random Educators we meet in life, be they the butcher, the baker, or candlestick maker, some sages teach us in sensationally pleasant ways. Others offer lessons that are authentically painful to us. Nonetheless, we learn. I believe had George Bernard Shaw not been so severely scarred in his childhood home, he too would have acknowledged this wisdom.

Frequently, Mommies and Daddies seem, as Shaw might ascribe, anathema as Teachers. My biological parents could have been characterized this way, and each was by a sibling or two. I share.

When I was a toddler, I learned to walk, to talk, and to toilet train myself. Granted, in the abstract, I had role models. Concretely? Not so much. Hence, my guru was my own grit and gumption. Later, in my youth, I sought a scholar when I wanted to study how to ride a bicycle.

Mommy and the man who was called father were busy. They had but minutes a day to help me work on maintaining my balance. The automobile parked safely in the garage had hours to spend. Therefore, I held the little Rambler's hand or she held mine. For days, I devoted much time to circling the car. With one palm on the vehicle and the other on the handlebars, I went round and round until finally I trusted myself to do other than lean. Then, I let go. My Teacher, the red Rambler, released me from what seemed a spell only when she sensed I understood.

The steel scholar had not pushed me; nor pulled me down. That sweet metallic body let me be "me." Munificence, benevolence, largesse, and the gift of trust are qualities that few have. I know not if these can be taught. I do believe that if they are learned, a semester of lessons is not enough.

As a very young child, I realized that no one around me was an authentically patient prospect. People pretended whilst they profess, they knew the way. I can; therefore, I will teach is often the stated premise. In actuality, in my life, the knowledgeable are frequently ill equipped to provide quality instruction. Less inspire. However, early on and even today, I do not endorse the conventional wisdom. "Mature" men and women posit, "My mother and father did the best they could." I would disagree.

My theory is less than lovely parents teach in manners, perhaps somewhat different, still, similar to those their parents favored. Teachers do too. If an Instructor learned to maintain an emotional distance, to lecture, rather than relate to a whole child, he or she will embrace this method. If statistics, scores, and specific learning strategies spoke to a Teacher when they were a student, the probability is high that techniques that utilize such conventions will be their chosen standard.

I learned from my Mom who transformed before my eyes, this was her truth . . . that is until she realized how her path had hurt her children. Thus, I trust Teachers too can choose to be aware of how their ways work or are less effective for any learner. Countless do. Fortunately for me, innumerable gurus have been my guides, much more so than the musings of George Bernard Shaw ever were.

I wonder. In the world of teacher evaluation might we examine our beliefs more closely. Could we not learn from a bit of real life reflection. Let us not so quickly endorse the data that proves what we came to believe in childhood. May each of us take a moment to sit with our reveries. Reason. Evaluate the history of "decline effects." Might we ponder the vast body of research results that do not merely restate or support simplistic, long-sanctioned, supposed "solutions." Let us hold dear our personal memories and recall, not every Teacher is anathema to the notion of education. I ask you to have faith as I do; those who can do teach!

References for a repeated reality . . .

• Value-Added Analysis. The Los Angeles Times.


• More Thoughts on the "Decline Effect," By Jonah Lehrer. The New Yorker. January 3, 2011


• Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance Based on Student Test Score Gains. By Peter Z. Schochet and Hanley S. Chiang. Mathematica Policy Research. July 2010


• Review of Learning About Teaching. By Jesse Rothstein. University of California Berkeley. National Education Policy January 2011


• Grading the Teachers: Value-Added Analysis. The Los Angeles Times.


• Parents have the right to know, By George Skelton. The Los Angeles Times. August 23, 21010


• New merit pay bill filed in Senate. By Leslie Postal. Orlando Sentinel. January 31, 2011


• Study supports teacher ratings, By Jason Felch. Los Angeles Times. December 11, 2010


• Formula to Grade Teachers' Skill Gains Acceptance, and Critics, By Sam Dillon. The New York Times. August 31, 2010


• Do Teacher Ratings Pass the Test? To The Editor. The Los Angeles Times. January 1, 2011


What do you think of the questions and thoughts Betsy has shared? Who have been your best teachers?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Yesterday I shared a conversation between an ex-Teach For America intern and his mentor. The focus of their discussion was on the need for far more effective forms of mentoring than is offered by TFA - but they indicated this problem is not unique to that program. David Greene described an alternative vision, built around the capacity of experienced teachers to serve as mentors to up and coming novices. That is music to my ears, because I have spent the last several years building a mentoring program on this premise.

Several commenters have come to the defense of TFA, including one named Steve, who wrote:

Is TFA the answer to all problems with the education system in our country? Absolutely not. I understand criticisms of the program as promoting short-term, rather than career teaching, and failing to prepare teachers adequately. What critics do not understand is that TFA teachers are recruited from amongst the best and brightest and placed in schools where other good teachers won't go. Most come in with a dead set determination to succeed, and a will to work extremely hard.

With the terrible pay and conditions in these schools, there are not enough 20 year career saints to go around. I have seen my share of veteran teachers that sit at their desk and watch movies all day after passing out worksheets. Would I rather have a top notch veteran teaching my kids than a TFA corp member? Yes! But given what I saw at my urban school, I would take a brand new TFA teacher over at least 70% of the "veteran" teachers there.

The system needs change, but until vast improvements are made, TFA will remain relevant and necessary.

Steve makes a very good point. Teach For America did not create the shortage of science teachers in my District. Teach For America is not responsible for the low pay and poor conditions that drive turnover and make it hard to find credentialed teachers. So Teach For America is a stop-gap. A temporary measure, that gives us some people to teach our students when we have few alternatives. I understand this well, having worked in Oakland for the past 24 years.

Here are my problems with Teach For America.

One. The organization has fallen into the trap of believing that test scores are a valid indicator of effectiveness. This leads to a widespread emphasis on test preparation, so that the organization can justify its worth. The TFA coaches I have encountered focus almost exclusively on test data when meeting with their interns, and put great pressure on them to achieve 80% mastery on all their tests. TFA did not invent this destructive game, but they have become adept at playing by these rules. Last year when examining student work with a mentee I saw that all the work looked like a test - nothing but short answer and multiple choice questions. She explained that her students were doing poorly on her weekly tests, so her TFA coach had advised her to make all of her classwork the same format as her tests. The test scores rose, but I do not think the students were learning the material in meaningful ways.

Two. The organization explicitly recruits people for a two-year commitment. In my experience, most interns are just beginning to become effective in their second year. In Oakland, after three years, 75% of our interns are gone. This problem is not limited to Teach For America, but the fact that they make the two-year commitment an explicit part of their design disturbs me. I believe the thing our high needs schools need most is dedicated and stable teachers, willing to invest for the long run. They need teachers to develop a deep understanding of the cultures of our students, and a relationship to the communities in which we work. Teach For America is not responsible for the high turnover at these schools, but by recruiting people for a two-year stint, they are not helping to fix this either.

What do we need to do instead? I recently described the TeamScience mentoring program I help lead in Oakland, which has made a dent in the turnover rate. As David Greene suggested, every beginning teacher ought to begin gradually, under the expert guidance of a master teacher. There ought to be time to observe, to consult and reflect with that mentor, so the invisible machinery of a great classroom can be understood.

We need to recognize that these sorts of mentoring and induction programs are absolutely necessary to have success in our high needs schools. Stability is necessary. Therefore decent pay and working conditions are necessary. Bringing in a program that plugs some of the gaps created by the absence of these things, as Teach For America does, should not be confused with systemic reform for our schools - even if they get good test scores. And I am concerned that some people may not understand that.

What do you think? Is Teach For America helping to improve our education system?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 8:45 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Last week, by way of a video posted through something called the Teachers Talk Back Project, I met a former Teach For America intern teacher by the name of John Bilby. He spoke of his relationship with his mentor, David Greene. I asked the two of them if they would share some of their experiences with us. This is their conversation:

John: My name is John Bilby and I taught with Teach For America for 6 months before leaving the program because I think that it doesn't prepare or support its teachers for the challenges they will face. I'm currently enrolled in a traditional teacher certification program so that I can get a firmer grounding and more experience before heading back into the classroom. David Greene was my field observer from my graduate program during my time with TFA; he was the biggest help to me, and the kind of advice that he gave me went above, beyond, and sometimes around the advice that TFA gives to its first year teachers.

Dave, let's start at the beginning. In order to prepare me for a job teaching English in the South Bronx (the poorest congressional district in the nation), TFA had me teach Social Studies at a summer school in East Harlem for 45 minutes a day, 4 days a week, for 4 weeks. I was a History major in college, I recently completed my MA in American History, and I hadn't taken an English class since 2006, when I finished my minor for college; the principal of my school needed an English teacher, though, so that is what I became. TFA wasn't concerned with the particulars of content area, I guess. Dave, how does that compare/contrast with your training experience?

David: John, let me first say that training experiences are quite complex and more often dependent on who trains you than where you were trained. I went to Fordham University's undergraduate School of Education, which no longer exists. Too bad. The undergraduate program had a 4 year program that included heavy academic work in your subject area, classwork in pedagogy, and field work in local neighborhood afternoon centers before you began a full time, semester long internship as a "student teacher". The pedagogy classes weren't worth much, but that's true in all schools. I have always believed that more practical experience with great teachers beats theory in an ivory tower. Everyone at Fordham and other University based training programs had similar sets of experiences. So far we were all on equal footing.

However, the real difference in training was where you were assigned to student teach and, more importantly, what cooperating teacher you were given. I was extremely lucky to have a woman who was a marvelously talented teacher and mentor. Phyllis Opochinsky was the best social studies teacher in the South Bronx school I was assigned to and also gifted at mentoring new teachers.

A major difference between you and I was that I gradually entered teaching. I wasn't dumped into the quicksand up to my neck. The first few weeks I did nothing but watch her, learn from her work, and practice writing lesson plans. I was then allowed to teach one of her classes on occasion. Then, for the last quarter I took over one of her classes as my own, but always with her in the room. By regulation, she had to be there. More importantly, she was there for me. We had preclass and post class discussions to work on my improvement.

Notice I am not even talking about the style of teaching. That is another conversation.

The second difference was where and for whom I worked when I started my first job, also in the South Bronx. My immediate supervisor (Department Chair/Assistant Principal) and my principal were also master teachers of social studies and gifted mentors of new teachers. Together they gave me the foundation to become a confident teacher in my field of study. They also gave me academic freedom. They trusted my intelligence and creativity. As a result, I knew I could grow, and grow I did.

One of my biggest frustrations for new teachers, TFA or otherwise, is not only the lack of quality time to prepare to teach, but more significantly, the lack of highly qualified mentors to train them. As I travel to the various schools I work in as a field supervisor for Fordham Universtiy, I am both encouraged and shocked by the large number of younger teachers in these schools.

I love the energy they bring, but oh the inexperience! Often, novices are training novices in how to follow the simple prescribed scripts TFA or the school gives them while proscribing those very techniques more experienced teachers know work. It often becomes my job to find a compromise between what they are being told to do, and what I know works; to fit the square peg of tested and successful teaching techniques into the round hole of whatever is used today to "increase student test scores."

John: That was my experience with their mentors, as well. My immediate TFA supervisor had taught for two years; the program's "big gun" had taught for 5. My principal had taught for 4, the AP had taught for 3. Between all of them, they still come up twenty-four years short of you.

Dave, I remember when you first came in to observe me and everything was, to put it nicely, a mess: I was doing some confusing lesson on God knows what that I had picked up from my grad school class, I never varied the tone of my voice and the only way I knew to get people's attention was to count down from 5 or clap my hands. I also had posters covering every inch of available wall space and I didn't use my whiteboard, an absurdly labor-intensive and un-academic TFA "trick" where you write everything on chart paper and then "reveal" it as class goes on (it has the byproduct of completely stifling any class conversation). You sat me down and told me that it was, politely, "not too good;" more importantly, you gave me ways to fix it, number one being to have a personality in the classroom, which actually WENT AGAINST what I had been told, which was to be neutral in all things.

TFA would also give us access to "teacher-proof" materials, when in fact it would be some thoughtlessly scripted lesson with all the right buzzwords that would be over in ten minutes and leave you with an hour and a half of chaos. You mentioned the "prescribed and proscribing" scripts that TFA hands out - how do you think we can do these things better? I think more preparation with experienced teachers is key, but that means time and money, two things in short supply. What can new TFA teachers and mentors do now?

David: John, Those are two questions. TFA teachers are hard pressed to do much unless they can wean themselves off of the prescribed formulas and look for proscribed alternatives. That is not likely to happen for two reasons. TFA puts a lot of pressure on you to do it their way. They also give you the big TFA teat to suckle. They give TFA teachers the "safe" way to prepare, so TFA becomes like an enabling parent. As a result, only the strong and more independent type of TFA teacher will separate themselves from this without help. And that is more likely to happen with a mentor who knows about and successfully uses proscribed alternative methods.

Unfortunately many mentors, as you describe, are still either enabled by TFA or another big approved program (the Teachers College model come to mind). Mentors and more experienced teachers must develop a mind set that there is more than one way to skin the cat of teaching. They must become students of teaching, so that they can pass along what they discover to their mentees. That is what is missing. When did teachers, especially mentors of new teachers, stop becoming students themselves?

What do you think? Does this correspond with your experiences?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 8:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

One of the many letters I received more than a year ago addressed to President Obama was from a teacher in Washington state named Robin Reynolds Barre. Today, she offers us these thoughts.

I write to you as an elder of sorts in the profession. I have been in the field for over 15 years now, a baby by some standards. But for those of you just beginning, I feel this is enough time under my belt, enough time spent in the trenches that I can share some words of wisdom. I am aware that many of you are preparing to teach in a public education system that has, for the last 10 years, been heavily influenced by the policies of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Thus many of you are products of this influence. This is an important fact and one that warrants an awareness of that perspective. I believe that as new teachers you have a responsibility to educate yourself on what system you came out of, how it has informed your beliefs and assumptions, and to begin critically assessing the influences of NCLB. A responsibility. To step willy-nilly into the classroom where you will be responsible for the educational welfare of dozens of students, without a critical eye to your own history as a student is irresponsible at best.

I believe, too, that as new teachers you have a responsibility to articulate why you want to teach; what is it you are hoping to achieve, what are the goals you have in mind for your students. And then critically question those as well. Where do these desires, hopes, and dreams for students come from? What voices whisper behind the curtain urging you on? Are they from your own experiences as a student? Do these voices come from the policy makers? The media? College boards? The parents of the children you teach? And from where and whom do these entities gather their beliefs and assumptions?

While I have my own ideas about education, the purposes of, where we've come from, where we're going, the damage to our children and public education perpetrated by the NCLB Act, and the damage that's waiting around the corner as the Obama administration and Arne Duncan's education cabinet tout their Race to the Top reform policies, I will not try to convince you of these opinions. I simply want to say that you have a responsibility to step into the profession of education with your eyes as wide open as possible. You must research, read as many opinions and reports as you can regarding the ongoing educational reform debates, talk with or listen to teachers who've been in the field for more than 5 years and from as many educational settings as possible - charter schools, private schools, inner city public schools, early childhood education all the way up to higher education. And talk with the children, the direct consumers of this institution we call public education.

To walk blindly into a classroom without arming yourself with the knowledge of the political, philosophical, pedagogical, and ideological conversations being held regarding public education is to walk into a landmine where the victims include yourself, your communities, and most heartbreaking of all, your students. In 1997 I did this very thing. It has taken many years of educating myself to come to the realization that I was woefully unprepared for the world I was walking into. My teacher education program was adequate, focused on serving inner city populations and the underserved, for which I was grateful. However, it wasn't until years later that I could look back and appreciate how naïve I was, how that naivete did not allow me to serve my students effectively. Hindsight taught me that much was left out of the teacher ed curriculum that should have been included.

I offer here names, issues, titles, and links that you are obligated to look at. Yes, I am presumptuous enough to say "obligated." I'll use my own story as an example. Let's imagine that you go to school for 12-24 months preparing to step into a rural middle school classroom. You have been taught curriculum development, laws and ethics, positive discipline, instructional methods, assessment, child and adolescent development, and a healthy dose of student teaching in real life settings. Then you step into your own classroom for the very first time and wham! It hits you. This is real life - children living in poverty with no dictionaries, scissors, glue, computers, or newspapers in the home. Children who are being abused and neglected. Children who come to school with no breakfast and go home to no dinner. Children with ADHD, oppositional children, shy and withdrawn children. You make your first child protective services report and think your heart will break. Several years later, you get the news that one of your former students has committed suicide. And the list goes on.

They don't teach you in teacher education programs what to do under these circumstances. What is the job of the teacher when a student commits suicide? When a child comes to you with tomato juice in her hair because she is homeless, lives in the woods, and her tent was sprayed by a skunk? When your student doesn't come to school for several days and then when she does, she tells you she was raped? What is your job? These are my stories. I am sure if you ask any teacher in education today, any teacher worth their weight, any teacher paying attention, they can tell you other such stories. What is your responsibility under these circumstances?

The website for the college where I received my teacher certification states that "Teachers have an immediate, direct, and positive impact on the common good . . . Discover how education can be a powerful vehicle for social change." That is what I went into teaching for. I would imagine that most of you also have this dream. Or perhaps you want your students to become lifelong learners, critical thinkers, creative contributing members to their communities. If any of the above are true, you must educate yourself regarding the issues schools are facing today before you begin educating your students.

Below are many links for you to begin this research. While I have included a few that stand on the other side of the issue from where I stand, the list is fairly biased, I admit. But it's a start. You can watch Waiting for Superman or The Lottery, read any of Michelle Rhee's articles and those of her supporters, or look to the current educational trends in Arizona and Texas to get a picture of the side on which I do not stand. But from my experience, these views are a dime a dozen. They're everywhere. It's the information that mainstream media does not spout, the information that gets swept under the corporations' big money rugs that I offer you here.

It is your responsibility to the democratic right to a public education, to our communities, and most of all to our children to educate yourself and research these issues. Otherwise, what are you doing in the classroom?

* original NCLB act
* The Obama administrations' revision of NCLB
* information regarding Race to the Top
* criticism regarding Race to the Top (RTTT)
* article which compares NCLB and RTTT

Diane Ravitch is Research Professor of Education at New York University and a historian of education. In addition, she is a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. From 1991 to 1993, she was Assistant Secretary of Education and Counselor to Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. From 1997 to 2004, she was a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the federal testing program.

* In this article she responds to PISA
* letter to Florida lawmakers as they geared up to vote in 2010 on merit pay for teachers based on testing scores of their students
* criticism against Ravitch's views, though I was confused as the blogger first accuses Ravitch of neoliberalism and then a few paragraphs down accuses her of neoconservatism.

* Students First page about her
* from a Teach for America alumn (one of the programs that Rhee supports for reforming education)
* criticism against Rhee's position as DC chancellor of schools

* map showing connections between big money and education reform
* critique of Waiting for Superman
* regarding the involvement of private investors in education
* more about the involvement of big business
* Race to Nowhere - interview with Abeles

* link to my FB note "Response to education article in Newsweek"
* link to article by a teacher ed professor addressing school leaders and policy makers regarding new teachers
* "When Did Teachers Become Bums?"
* "We're living in the darkest times for teachers that I've ever seen in my life."
* Marion Brady on teacher accountability

* link to my FB note "The Travesty We Call Public Education"
* repercussions of today's public education system's "movements"
* what this is doing to our children
* a short video about and by students
* on creativity
* the story behind Chinese students' outstanding test scores

follow this link and there are other videos by this engaging speaker

Giroux currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department. He has taught at Boston University, Miami University of Ohio, and Penn State University. Routledge named Giroux as one of the top fifty educational thinkers of the modern period in 2002.

* Henry Giroux writes about Freire and the education plutocracy

I have no links, though be sure to check out Wikipedia's information on this towering figure in education. Books that are on the shelves of the responsible teacher are:

• Pedagogy of the Oppressed


• Pedagogy of the Heart


• Pedagogy of Hope


• We Make the Road By Walking


• Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare to Teach

The Moral Dimensions of Teaching, editors Goodlad, Soder, Sirotnik

The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on America's Public Schools by Berliner and Biddle - a response to A Nation at Risk, a document prepared by a committee under the direction of Reagan's secretary of education

What do you think of Robin Reynolds Barre's advice? Her list of articles and books? Is there anything you would add?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Last summer, the Los Angeles Times made a splash when they published the names of 6,000 teachers along with "value added" scores they derived from the examination of test score data. This came under heavy fire from many - including me, when I found myself on a panel discussing the subject. The story took on tragic overtones when a dedicated veteran teacher, Rigoberto Ruelas, took his own life. His family reported he had been despondent since the LA Times labeled him as "less effective." In spite of serious questions about the reliability of their methods, the Times has stuck to their approach. This week, a new analysis by the National Education Policy Center in Colorado has been published that thoroughly discredits the "value added" method by which they determined which teachers were more or less effective.

But the real story has become how Felch and the Los Angeles Times have responded to this challenge. Felch got a copy of the report prior to its official release, which was scheduled for today. Although the report was in draft form, Felch rushed to press with a rather ham-handed attempt to manipulate and spin the story to his advantage. His story was headlined "Separate study confirms many Los Angeles Times findings on teacher effectiveness" The story misrepresents the study's conclusions to such an extent that one of the authors, Dr. Derek Briggs, felt compelled to issue an immediate and emphatic point by point rebuttal. The study and the rebuttal to Felch are both available here.

A few choice quotes:

In yesterday's article in the LA Times, Felch asserts:

A study to be released Monday confirms the broad conclusions of a Times' analysis of teacher effectiveness in the Los Angeles Unified School District while raising concerns about the precision of the ratings.

Derek Briggs replies:

I don't see how one can claim as a lead that our study "confirmed the broad conclusions"-- the only thing we confirmed is that when you use a value-added model to estimate teacher effects, there is significant variability in these effects. That's the one point of agreement. But where we raised major concerns was with both the validity ("accuracy") and reliability ("precision"), and our bigger focus was on the former rather than the latter. The research underlying the Times' reporting was not sufficiently accurate to allow for the ratings.

Felch later states:

The authors largely confirmed The Times' findings for the teachers classified as most and least effective

Dr. Briggs responds:

No, we did not, quite to the contrary. Mr. Felch seems to be again focused only on the precision issue and not on the accuracy problems that we primarily focus on in our report.

Dr. Briggs goes into more specific misrepresentations and much more thoroughly explains the flaws in the LA Times methods in his rebuttal, and the original paper that was the subject of this dispute.

The entire process elevates once again the question of the fundamental integrity of this project on the part of the LA Times. If they are devoted to doing a public service by raising the legitimate issue of teacher evaluation, they must be willing to enter an honest discussion about the means by which this evaluation should be done. At the discussions at UC Berkeley in which I participated last fall, numerous scholars raised fundamental concerns similar to those expressed by Drs. Briggs and Domingue. Mr. Felch simply brushed them off, as can be seen in this video from the event.

In this most recent instance, he has more than brushed off the criticism. He has misrepresented a critique as agreement. This is media manipulation at its worst.

What do you think? Is the LA Times trying to manipulate this story?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 1:56 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

With state budgets falling short tough choices are being made for our schools. In spite of all the "students first" rhetoric, the way the various alternatives are being framed says much more about the ideology at work than what research and experience shows to be the best for children. Here are some genuine education reforms that, for some reason, have lost favor with lawmakers and their wealthy sponsors.

A recent study showed that school programs that target social and emotional learning yield significant benefits in terms of student learning.

Compared with their peers, participating students also significantly improved on five key nonacademic measures: They demonstrated greater social skills, less emotional stress and better attitudes, fewer conduct problems such as bullying and suspensions, and more-frequent positive behaviors, such as cooperation and help for other students. Also, the effects continued at least six months after the programs ended.

AND:

students who took part in social and emotional learning, or SEL, programs improved in grades and standardized-test scores by 11 percentile points compared with nonparticipating students.

Researchers were surprised by one outcome:

Simple teacher-led programs vastly outperformed multifaceted programs involving schoolwide activities and parent involvement. While classroom-based programs showed significant improvements across all five social measures and academics, comprehensive programs showed no significant effect on students' social-emotional skills or positive social behavior, and were less effective at improving academic performance.

It was the classroom teachers who were able to "move the needle" the most here.

Smaller class sizes have also been shown to be positively correlated with student success. The Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) provides eligible high poverty schools in California with additional funds to allow for smaller class sizes, additional counseling staff and time for teachers to collaborate and work on their assessment practices. This has resulted in significant growth in these schools.

News from Utah this week likewise indicates that the schools that met Federal growth targets had, on average, lower class sizes than those that did not.

And we have the indirect evidence. What do many people with money choose for their own children? Often it is the private schools, where class sizes are much smaller on average than those in the public schools.

But small class size is described as a "feel good" policy without a solid link to improved student achievement by Michelle Rhee's Student First policy agenda, and Arne Duncan and Bill Gates have made comments recently calling for larger class sizes in response to tight budgets.

Another solid reform is programs that draw on experienced teachers as leaders, to create mentoring programs that emphasize professional growth and retention. The TeamScience program in Oakland has significantly reduced teacher turnover, and is building a culture of collaboration, where veteran teachers are highly valued for their expertise. But in the topsy-turvy world inhabited by our "reformers," veteran teachers are a drag on the system, their masters' degrees cost us more, but are scorned because experience and degrees do not always result in higher test scores.

These Cinderellas of education reform have all actually been shown to be positively correlated with student achievement. I should say that I do NOT believe test scores should be our primary benchmark for success, because they are such a narrow measure of learning, and miss much of what we value. The reforms I describe above rise to a much higher standard. They address the ways in which we value each child as an individual learner, and nurture them as whole humans. They respect the expertise and professional capacity of our teachers to respond to the needs of their students and create classroom environments that honor them in all their complexity.

Will those who are so insistent that we put "students first" in our decisions come forward to advocate for smaller class sizes? For the value of experienced teachers in our schools? And for social and emotional learning? All these things provide such tremendous benefits, and yes, often improve student test scores as well. Is there some reason these approaches do not seem to qualify as "reforms"?

By the way, those of us who advocate the sorts of reforms I describe here are holding our OWN ball, the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action, July 27 to 31, in Washington, DC. Come, dance with us for a real change to the status quo!

What do you think of these reforms? Why is it that these things are so often ignored in the drive to fix our schools?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 11:52 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

One of my fellow organizers for the Save Our Schools March in Washington, DC, is an Idaho parent and veterinarian, Victoria Young. She writes today about the latest news from her state.

Across the country, acts of insanity are occurring in the name of "education reform." What is unique to Idaho, where I live, is Mr. Luna, our recently re-elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction. He is a business man who qualified for this position through an on-line degree program. His other qualifications include serving on a local school board, seat time on the state Accountability Commission, a position in the Bush administration for No Child Left Behind, and he is of the right political party figuratively and literally.

Mr. Luna has developed Idaho's plan to "educate more students at a higher level with limited resources," words that were repeated over and over as the selling point for this new education reform plan. Those words and the title "Students Come First" hit home with many corporate interests, foundations, lawmakers and some residents. The plan (not yet approved by legislators) was presented as an innovative idea with a dual purpose, saves money and improves education. Details?

Students Come First. According to the leadership here, the state must "admit that the current system is no longer adequate and have the courage to change it." So the plan is now written in two separate bills that as of yesterday (2/3/11) were approved by our state education committee to print. Reform will come with a price.

The "Public School Modernization and Reform" Bill funds the purchase of laptops for every 9th grader and mandates six on-line credits to graduate. The minimum instructional salary is increased by $345 while funding formulas are changed to foster class size increases. Pay-for-Performance is set to include Student Achievement-Based Awards, Hard-to-Fill Bonuses and Leadership Awards. After 2015, anytime the budget sees a shortfall, Pay-for-Performance will be funded ahead of salary allowances.

In part two, the "Labor Relations and Employee Entitlements" Bill, you find the full blown attack on "tenured teachers." It includes limitations on negotiations, contracts limited to one year, and the elimination of the requirement to bargain "in good faith." And of course, consideration of seniority would become a thing of the past.

In essence, here in Idaho, we will use technology not as a tool to improve education but as a replacement for 770 teachers in order to make the dollars come out right. So, if you like to gamble, don't need job security, love to play the numbers games, and are willing to teach to the test when necessary, this state is for you.

There was some expression of concern that the computers would create more state bureaucracy but the response was that those issues would be taken care of by contracting out to a "private provider." No worries? I'm not sure any one asked if was alright with the public to use the law to put public education money into private pockets.

In Idaho, Luna-cy has taken on a meaning of its own. The definition I would choose in this case is "insanity amounting to lack of responsibility in the eyes of the law." What is happening here and across the country is criminal ─ intended or not.

Through my work with the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action organization, the magnitude of the situation was unveiled. I noticed within the communications from another volunteer a link to Indiana's plan titled "Putting Student's First." She also had made a remark that teachers have been accused of not having the courage to change. Google Michelle Rhee and the word "courage"...think about this... "Students Come First," "Putting Student's First," and Ms. Rhee's organization "Students First"... coincidence; or "second verse same as the first." Nice words, ugly details...anyone in addition to me having a Déjà vu moment?

We have been this way before. They wrote the words, played the tune, beat the drums, pulled the strings and we danced the jig... No Child Left Behind; great title, costly mistake. As a writer, I found myself pausing for a moment in awe of the architect (or architects) of this "business-model education reform movement" verbiage. It's brilliant and has effectively led the people through phase one ─ acceptance of standardized tests as a standard measure of the system, student, and teacher ─ and into phase two ─ securing reliance on standardization and privatization.

That moment of admiration pasted quickly leaving me feeling physically ill.

This morning in the paper, the battle lines were clearly drawn. In support of the Luna plan were Idaho Business Coalition for Education Excellence, the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, and the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce in addition to two wealthy foundations with long histories in failed education reforms. On the other side, a teachers union and unorganized people who sincerely want to see us put students first.

I had to ask myself; if this is about putting students first, how will it work when we are in a budget crunch as we are now?

Under the "business-model" mentality, once labor protections are removed, cheap labor "works." Any time we have privatized a public service it goes through phases of the privatization process that initially includes regulations to protect the consumer. Then it's on into the de-regulation phase and the building of monopolies. Those phases are then followed by booms and busts with the resultant concentration of wealth, power, and control. Take it further and we end up with tyranny, oppression, and revolution.

Must we drag future generations of children through that same cycle, or can we now have a national discussion like mature, concerned adults and work together towards a better outcome? Do we really want to subject children to free-market "rules" knowing that "free" doesn't mean "fair"?

I don't know if this education agenda is born out of blind ignorance or just part of the expanded playing field of the politically powerful. What I do know is that what is happening is wrong for American children, of that I am certain, and I stand ready to take on that debate sooner rather than later. If the real architect of "reform" won't participate, can't find the courage to do so, any of the well-prepped mouth pieces would do. The country deserves to hear an open debate about education issues so they can decide for themselves what direction puts students first.

One thing I can tell teachers today is that the majority of the people support you and your chosen profession. When you close your classroom door, you don't stand alone in front of your students. We support you. As you look out over your students, know this ─ we understand that you are doing everything you are able to and know how to do, to put your students first. Now, we need your support. It's time to choose what piper we wish to pay and to what tune we will dance.

It's time we demand that all plans pass a test, a test designed to meet a new standard for American education. Simple test, one question; is the plan best for our kids, our communities, and our country?

Victoria M. Young is a mother, a veterinarian, an author, an advocate for equal educational opportunity, and an American who has had enough of the insanity surrounding education reform.

What do you think of Victoria Young's viewpoint? What should be our top priority?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As the Department of Education prepares to push for reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, there are several "improvements" that will be made. The impossible goal of 100% proficiency by 2014 will be abandoned, as will the concept of Adequate Yearly Progress. The effect of these changes will be that schools attended by middle class children will be safe from the punitive consequences in the law. These consequences, however, will continue to be served to the "bottom 5%" of our schools. If I thought the Department had helpful solutions and useful tools, this would be a boon. However, it looks as if the same four dismal choices will be offered -- close down, become a charter, fire half the staff and/or fire the principal.

Last year veteran teacher Chuck Olynyk gave us a front-row seat as Fremont High in Los Angeles was the subject of "restructuring," one of the four options from the Department of Education's very skinny playbook. The history of every battle, it is said, is written by the victors. Chuck was not victorious in the battle to save Fremont High, but he is still alive, and unwilling to let the history be rewritten to suit the master narrative. Here, he offers some inconvenient reminders of what actually took place, in response to a TV news personality's glib summary.

Today is Wednesday, February 02, 2011 and Day 23 of Year Two. Happy Groundhog Day. The days started off well enough: cursing because I was leaving the house a little later than normal, I looked at the sky from habit, sought out Scorpius, saw Mars in Virgo, let my eyes creep toward the zenith to Arcturus, and from there to the Big Dipper. Then I saw it. Zipping by Mizar (second star in the handle of the Digger) and its companion Alcor was the International Space Station. I'd watched the stars enough to get pretty good at spotting satellites, which were rather magical to me; there they were, man-made objects hurtling across the sky, not as swiftly as the meteors, but maybe because they were visible symbols of mankind's attempt to leave the cradle of Earth, to see what's out there, it was the stuff of dreams. Watching an old Soviet satellite break up in the '70s took my breath away; as it came down in the atmosphere, I caught it in my telescope and
followed it's demise, glowing pieces breaking off as this eye in the sky met its death upon returning to Mother Earth. You can never go home, eh?

My dreams were different back then. The goal was to be an astronomer AND that I planned to work aboard a space station (this was pre-Sky Lab) and write on the side. My point in relating that? Dreams change. Sometimes it is because the proved unattainable. Sometimes something else comes to matter more.

That's where teaching came in. I stumbled into it, but so many people I knew back in high school and college told me over the years, "Yeah, we figured you'd be an English teacher in some rough part of town. That's so you." Wish to Hell they'd told me before; it might have saved me some time, but maybe I needed to take the long way before I realized this was what I feel I was meant to do.

So many threads of my life have come together to put me here.

So I have to respond to Kevin Hale, VP/General Manager, MyFoxLA (otherwise known as Fox 11).

Mr. Hale, since I'm planning to send this to you, please consider this an open letter. I realize such letters should be send directly to the person one has the problem with alone, but since you made your statement "POV: Low-Performing Schools"
on Tuesday, February 1, 2011 and you discuss your views on Fremont High, I feel compelled to respond. If you want to respond, you can either label me a nutbar, one of the lunatic fringe whose comments can be either round-filed or ridiculed, or you can respond to me either in your forum (I'd like to know, if you do) or you can go to rememberfremont.webs.com, where this will go up.

Mr. Hale, my name is Chuck Olynyk. I've been a teacher since 1983, in LAUSD since September 11, 1987. For the first seven years, I taught at Thomas Edison Middle School. In 1994, I joined the faculty of John C. Fremont High School, remaining a Pathfinder through 16 years of principals who lasted 23 months on the average. I lasted through a nearly countless series of educational magic bullets in a place where kids showed up smelling like wet laundry, in filth and grime, where vermin ran wild and where we had to endure two weeks of a faculty men's room without a toilet seat, where we had no hot water in said restroom for months, where we had overcrowded classes, inadequate supplies and shared the overburdened facilities with adult school, leaving many of our rooms in shambles each morning and hunting for our desks, rebuilding our rooms.

You stated,

The school was such a dismal failure, LAUSD made a dramatic decision. Under Federal law, the "No Child Left Behind" act, Superintendent Raymond Cortines announced he was reconstituting the school--in effect, firing its staff and sweeping the whole place clean. Cortines' move was perfectly legal but completely unprecedented in Los Angeles. And it created a firestorm. The teacher's union slammed the district, placing blame on the school's administrators and not its teachers.

We were NOT fired. We were, however, told to reapply, even though we were considered responsible for a "culture of failure", as Superintendent Cortines put it. Many of us chose not to. We later were threatened, told we HAD to reapply, that there were standing orders (issued on a pink-colored memo) that NO letters of recommendation were to be written, whether staff had exemplary evaluations or not. There was coercion. There was intimidation. There was also considerable backpedaling when statements which were made proved to be false.

I understand you had a theme, so of course you would not address that.

Yet you dismiss that the average teacher lasts less than three years at Fremont, that the average administrator (an education leader) lasts less than 23 months. And that each and every one of these leaders came in with a SERIES of magic bullets to "fix" Fremont, often contradictory in direction.

Many of us did not reapply. We were not abandoning the school we loved. We were fighting to save it. Many of us maintain contacts amongst current staff and students. This was a community we were deeply invested in.

When we chose not to reapply, it was because many of us felt we had done nothing wrong. In 23 years of teaching in LAUSD, I have never received a negative evaluation. I can say the same for many of my colleagues. Yet we were to blame, at least in the eyes of the media.

When you cite "But by July, Fremont High School had a new direction pushed by famed reformer George McKenna, who was actually played by Denzel Washington in a movie," you are citing someone who told the staff to reapply for their jobs in a January faculty meeting, telling them that most would get their jobs back. The truth of the matter was, in order to qualify for a grant, 50% of the faculty had to be "removed." "George McKenna / LAUSD: 'We did it internally, we didn't ask for some outside provider on a white horse to come in here and promise things they can't deliver.'"

Internally? When Fremont "reopened" July 6th, 2010 (an event your station covered), the principal told the Los Angeles Times' Howard Blume that the school was fully staffed and that he had kept the "cream of the crop." Yet it turned out, in a December L.A. Times article by the same Howard Blume that the school had serious staffing problems, that many of the new teachers had no educational experience.

These are the same people telling you the test scores went up. By the way, these tests are periodic assessments. They are not true indicators of success or failure.

What is an indicator of failure is honesty--or lack thereof. On July 6th, your station broadcast a story on the New Fremont In your clip, you showed footage from your "eye in the sky" (I'll assume it was yours), portraying a riot, with the voice-over that this was a school "plagued by violence." I wrote on July 6th and I write again, that is the only event of its kind in my 16 years at Fremont, yet by showing this dramatic footage and with your voice-over (meaning the person from your station), your station has sensationalized the violence, not unlike the way gun incidents were portrayed a couple of weeks ago.

I'm a history teacher. Where others see unconnected events, I see patterns. Today, I taught about the French Revolution, specifically about the Reign of Terror. In that tragic time, if one did not slavishly agree with the reformers of the country, one was branded an "Enemy of the Revolution." Those people were given public trials for show, paraded through the streets and then led to the guillotine.

You write, "I encourage LAUSD to continue to take a hard look at every failing school in the district and to take bold action. And I challenge the teachers union not to stand in the way." Merely to change direction is wrong. To change without a better course is wrong. To experiment on inner city children is wrong. This is why the union, why teachers of conscience are standing up and speaking out. An atmosphere has been created wherein those who oppose plans, no matter how shoddy, are accused of being "against children."

That is self-serving nonsense. You speak of challenges. Do you have what it takes to come to my school for one week, to shadow my throughout the day, to teach a series of scaffolded lessons (not even an entire unit) to the mere 125 kids I have at Roosevelt High, as opposed to the 180 I had at Fremont? If you want to come out and follow one of the "loser teachers" who "got fired" from Fremont, please let me know. Or just watch.

Chuck Olynyk
Social Studies teacher
Humanitas Arts School at Roosevelt Senior High

What do you think? How is the press covering education issues in your town? What do you think of Chuck's response?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 9:54 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend