Admin Financially Incentivized to not Suspend

It seemed like a normal day after school. I cleaned up my classroom, stowed my projector, double-checked that I completed my attendance, and walked to my car hoping we’d get some snow. I shook off all the cursing, fighting, shouting, and students running around the hallways craving a more peaceful tomorrow.

I turned on NPR. The reporter said that Baltimore City Public Schools had introduced a new program that financially incentivizes administrators to not suspend students. How much? $9,500. My blood began boiling. The CEO of City Schools, Andres Alonso, said that students should be in school. I couldn’t agree more. Students should be in school, but not at the expense of the safety of the students and staff.

I work at a school where the students vary in age from 11 to 20-years-old. When gang violence enters the building, when drugs enter the building, when sexual harassment enters the building, when weapons enter the building, it makes other people unsafe and it limits their rights to be educated in a safe environment. Additionally, what kind of message does it send to our students to say, “you fought but now you have to go to class” or “you shouldn’t sell pot to a 7th grader, but I want my $9,500 so go back to class.”

What is a teacher to do when their students won’t be suspended for fighting in their classroom? Give them a consequence? That is where administration is supposed to step-in and show that student and other students that certain behaviors are intolerable. What happens in the real world if you break the rules? Fines, jail, decay of society. I do not believe in punishing students, but I do believe in having consequences for actions and, more importantly, keeping other students safe and giving them the education they deserve.

Read more from the Baltimore Sun: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/bs-md-ci-suspension-bonus-program-20130114,0,6389037.story

Fighting to Keep Failure Factories Open

An issue that Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) recently dealt with that I find very interesting (and equally infuriating) is that when the failing charter school, Bluford Drew Jemison STEM Academy, was being threatened with non-renewal, there were multiple stakeholders (and not just the Executive Director who makes over $100,000 for doing virtually nothing) fighting to keep it open. 

I am specifically in support of the district’s decision to non-renew the BDJ charter based on my experiences as teacher at their West location last year. However, as detailed in a recent Baltimore Sun article, there are many who were trying to keep the charter in operation.  

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/blog/bs-md-charter-school-debate-20130209,0,6017624.story?track=rs

Ms. Emory who made many of the comments in the article is a retired principal who ran the BDJ West building back when it was Walbrook High School. She still hangs around the school, now that it is BDJ, yet has no positive impact on the school culture. Last year, the middle school was essentially a fight club for students; in fact, multiple teachers (including myself) were assaulted and sexually harassed on more than one occasion. I am baffled that she continues to make such positive remarks about the school, considering she has actually seen it in action. 

Additionally, multiple BDJ students from both locations also protested the closing by attending BCPSS Board Meetings with in their uniforms and with signs. I even ran into one of my former students there. He was one of the few great students I taught, but I was shocked to see him standing up for a charter organization that, if anything, threatened his ability to excel academically (given that it was a generally chaotic and often dangerous place to go to school). 

I can’t help but question: are the people who were fighting (for reasons other than financial incentive) to keep the BDJ charter (and other schools like it) around just delusional or is this really their idea of a good school because they just haven’t experienced any better themselves (as students or as educators)?

Being Finland.

According to Pearson's "The Learning Curve" report, released in September 2012, Finland is THE place to be a teacher.

Finland.  Finland, Finland, Finland.

We get it - you're the best - "number one." Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I have heard so much praise and excitement over the great things happening in Finland's education system to give it that number-one-with-a-bullet rank.  The United States, however, barely squeaks by into the top 20 list, settling in at an unimpressive 17.  What's the disparity here?

Finland's model openly challenges the effectiveness of our nation's teacher preparation and evaluation programs.  As a Teach for America alum, I grapple with the idea of teacher training:  Finland would never allow a teacher with five weeks of crash-course summer training to teach.  In Finland, the pathway to become an educator is challenging and competitive, with a low acceptance rate into masters programs (which is absolutely required to become a teacher).  Interestingly enough, as opposed to the estimated 50% turnover rate for the first five years of teaching in the United States, education appears to be a lifelong profession in Finland.  "Teach for Finland" is not an option.

Additionally, unlike some of its competitors, Finland does not track its students; all students learn in the same classroom.  Standardized testing does not exist, except the exit exam at the end of secondary school.  Class sizes are smaller, but not significantly so (an average of about 21 students per class).   Time in the classroom is less than in the United States. Even still, the differences in the lowest-performing students and highest-performing students is minimal.

They continue to outshine us in so many regards.  So, how can we learn from them?

It's hard to say for sure if we could mirror a system like this in our own country because our populations are so diverse, and our history and culture are so different. I'm not sure we could just take their system and implement it flawlessly.  However,  I believe that we can learn, reflect, and adjust if we analyze how Finland is able to consistently keep good teachers in the classroom and students performing at their best.

It seems that the baseline here is choosing the right people to teach children.  In this respect, I feel that programs like TFA or The New Teacher Project (TNTP) are on the right track as Finland - focusing on the "best and brightest" - but the program itself falls short.  Instead of this temporary quick-fix, maybe we should start making the teacher preparation process more selective.

Finland does evaluate teachers, but does not use it for reprimanding or micromanaging.  Rather, it is used for development. Teachers in Finland also can decide on their own teaching methods and materials.  Because all teachers are so well-prepared and impeccably trained, there is an implicit trust in their abilities.  Therefore, they are given complete autonomy over their work and they test their own students.  Teaching is a well-respected and highly-regarded profession, peppered with a lot of freedom and trust.

Some places, like Baltimore City, feel the need to use salary-based incentives to keep teachers motivated to perform well.  While I believe that this is certainly on the right track, I think that teacher training, evaluation, and satisfaction are really the key for a more effective educational system.  Of course salary must be considered, but this is not the main reason that Finland attracts the best and brightest students to teaching.  The pay is not bad, nor is it exceptional - it is average.  Despite this, their teachers are dedicated and their results are undeniable.

I feel it is our charge as urban educators to consider the type of reform it would take to create a system that praises, not blames, teachers - that successfully supports the whole child - that fairly evaluates both teachers and students.  In the last fifty years, we have seen Finland gradually renovate their entire educational system and subsequently thrive.  Enough of this "number one" business - what about us?  This is our time to act.

The question is - where do we start?

A Short Piece on Bullying

A Short Piece on Bullying

By: Justin Garritt

86% of students between the ages of 12-15 have been bullied at school. Every seven minutes there is a bullying incident at recess and every 25 minutes there is a bullying incident in the classroom according to a study by Dorta in 2007.  Webster’s Dictionary describes bullying as the repeated harmful actions by one child or children against another. Physical, or direct, bullying includes kicking, pushing, and engaging in rough play. Physiological bullying includes name calling, making faces, harassment, and threats. Gerald Walton, an educational researcher from Queen’s University says that it is impossible for a student to fully engage in their school work if they have to worry about being bullied.  

           

All over the news and in legislation, bullying and bullying prevention seem to have become a very hot topic for Americans. We constantly see stories about how bullying has resulted in suicides, attempted suicides, intentional overdosing, depression, etc. Personally speaking, throughout my two years in Baltimore, I have seen an unbelievable amount of bullying take place in almost every section of the school environment. I have seen hundreds of bullying episodes happen, reported, and nothing be done about the situation beyond at the teacher level. I believe we must do more to address the issue of bullying so that all our students can have a safe place to learn.

Educational Researcher, G. Walton, believes that, “The most important piece to bullying prevention are school administrators because they are the ones that usually create the Bullying Prevention Plan, create in-service professional development days and the ones usually handling the bully when he or she is sent to the principal’s office. He states, “A school administrator needs to have a clear vision and implement plans on ways to deal with bullying.”

In college I had the opportunity to be mentored by a Principal at my local elementary school during my student teaching experience. Her school had the lowest accounts of bullying out of anyone else in the state of Vermont. Although the environment and culture is much different than Baltimore, I decided to use this blog entry to learn new strategies to prevent bullying from a veteran principal. 

Carol Pickett is the Principal of Castleton Elementary School and has been there for a dozen years. She has taken on bullying at her school through a variety of ways. First, she developed a short and concise four page Bullying Prevention Plan that first states what bullying is and then describes ways that the school will deal with it.  She says that what she believes characterizes a successful school-based action plan is that it must include clear and logical consequences for those children who bully, support to those children being bullied, and instruction to all children that emphasizes respect and compassion for others, and positive ways that children can resolve disagreements or conflicts. She said, “Justin, the key is to just immediately end it. If I hear even the slightest complaint of bullying from students or teachers, I hold a meeting in which I listen to the event and then immediately act on it. I do not tolerate any bullying! The staff, the students, and the parents know that.” Pickett recognizes that the most frequent areas of bullying occur in the hallways and at recess. Mrs. Pickett requires that teachers stand outside their door while students are switching between classes. She also requires there to be a 1-10 teacher to student ratio during recess. At every activity (kickball, capture the flag, basketball. . i.e.)  there is at least one teacher or aid to watch what is going on. Sheri Nichols, the administrative assistant, posts many opportunities for employees to get professional training for free on how to deal with bullies in the “AM Morning Notes” that get sent out to the teachers daily. In an interview with her she said, “At least one in-service day per year is dedicated to bullying. On top of this, all teachers have the opportunity attend other conferences to get better trained if they want to. The school pays for it and it does not count as a sick day.                            

What really sets Castleton Elementary so far above most schools is their “Program Strategies” that Principal Pickett and her teachers have implemented. She teamed up with the nearby college to get mentors for all middle school students. Not only are the students learning about setting goals, and steps to college but having an extra 50 supervisors at recess daily will surely minimize any chance of bullying at lunch or recess. There is also a Leadership Team and a Gentlemen’s Club where a selected group of student’s meet once a week with either the Principal or a teacher to discuss being a good role-model and leader. These students get trained on how to handle a bully and who to tell about it. Mrs. Pickett and the teachers have also created a warm and positive school by having encouraging posters with bright colors that surround the school

Since I was a child I witnessed all types of bullies. I remember kids getting beat up in the hallway because they wore nice clothes. I remember my friend getting name-called in 4^th grade because he couldn’t successfully throw a football yet. These were the same students who either later on dropped out or never graduated from high school or had severe depression issues. Very similar to my current experience in Baltimore, the school I attended as a child and its employees seemed to never address the situation and just let it happen. I thought most schools were run like this until I walked in to Castleton Elementary School where the Principal has set up a great system of prevention along with a clear set and fair plan of how to deal with issues when they arise.

I look forward to hearing any comments you have in regards to bullying at your school and what, if anything, is being done at the administrative or teacher level to address it so that all students feel safe to learn, free from bullying.

Thanks for reading,

Justin Garritt

SPI: Great in theory?

The current shift in education reform in the wake of No Child Left Behind is a new accountability measure called School Progress Index (SPI). A school’s SPI is determined by their Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO). Based on achievement, closing achievement gaps, and growth, schools are placed in strands—1 being the best and 5 being worst.

This new system has many pros: the SPI is growth based with goals for each individual school. It is not one size fits all policy. There is a new focus on science with a targeted focus on closing achievement gaps. At first glance, as with anything in education, it seems like a good plan—a good plan in theory, anyway.

One main problem is: How will the data be used? As we have seen in class, Booker T is a strand 2 while a KIPP is a strand 4 (I’m sure both schools are doing great things). What message does this send to parents, though? Who is meant to use this data and how? AYP was used as a mainstream way of saying what type of school you were sending your child to. Should SPI be used this way? Won’t it be? Won’t it send a very weird message to parents?

Does this individual school growth mindset create hope? A “we are improving” mentality? Or does it send false hope—that Booker T is considered “better” than KIPP? The bar was clearly set too high at 100% for NCLB and while this goal is realistic and perhaps attainable, is the bar now set too low?

While this goal may be attainable, it uses the MSA and HSA to measure achievement. Wait a sec—MSA is gone in the next few years and PARCC is in. Hmm—aren’t we doing this backwards? Shouldn’t we have the assessment when we are setting what the goal should be? What if this PARCC assessment doesn’t measure what we want it to? What if it’s ridiculously difficult? What if every school ends up a strand 4 or 5? Then in 10 years we’ll be laughing at how unattainable the goals set were. The point is—how can we tell if we are setting attainable, realistic and challenging goals if we don’t even know what the assessment will be?

When it comes to closing gaps, what about schools who aren’t particularly diverse? How will they measure this in a school say where there are 400 white students and 1 or 2 minority students? Or schools with only 1 or 2 English Language Learners? Is it really logical to put 40% of the SPI on the performance of just a few students? At some schools, this might be the case. Of course, I am all for closing achievement gaps and helping those students whether there is 1 or 50, but it seems like the data will be very skewed in some ways.

Also, isn’t this blatantly unfair to high performing schools? They don’t have as much growth to make, and they are doing perfectly fine—let’s punish them! It makes no sense. What does happen to schools in Strand 4 and 5?  Let’s look at the case of the KIPP strand 4 school. Baltimore City says strand 4 schools will have: improvement of instruction, the replacement or retraining of the leadership staff and intensified outreach to families to become involved with their child’s school. Wait—doesn’t KIPP know what it’s doing already? Shouldn’t this be for low performing schools? The school with achievement in the 30% range, not in the 80% range?

Is SPI an improvement? Definitely. Is it flawed? Definitely. Will it make for some very interesting implications? Definitely. But the real question is—will it actually help our students?