Today, Michelle Rhee, the Chancellor of DC Public Schools stepped down. Rhee has long been a divisive figure in DCPS often clashing with the local union as a result of a new evaluation system and the firing of more than 200 DCPS teachers. The news on its face is a setback to all the reforms that Rhee instituted in her 3 year tenure as Chancellor.
However, her replacement, Kaya Henderson shares much in common with Rhee in terms of the new evaluation system. Rhee and Henderson also worked together at The New Teacher Project. They share the belief that the teacher is an important component to student success. Vincent Gray who defeated Adrian Fenty in the primaries and is thought to be the next Mayor of DC mentions in the Washington Post that ""We cannot and will not return to the days of incrementalism". This seems to indicate that the reforms of the last three years are here to stay, at least for the time being.
The majority of news coverage seems to suggest that Rhee's divisive nature and her association with a lame duck mayor are the reason for her departure. However, the New York Times casually slips in another possible reason for Rhee's transition "Replacing Ms. Rhee, who is Korean-American, with Ms. Henderson, who is black, is expected to ease racial tensions." It is interesting to note that the New York Times fails to elaborate on this point, nor does anyone else interviewed comment on this as a factor. To what extent does the race of the leader of a school system affect student achievement? I am not aware of any data that answers that question. I do think it has more to do with the political climate than anything else.
Does this mean that Rhee has failed or that she is out of the field of education reform? I don't believe so. I think that what Rhee has done is nothing less than bold and innovative. This is a turning point in her career as an education reformer. I predict that Rhee will continue in education reform at a more holistic and national scale. She seems to be at her best when she shakes up the status quo with her take charge attitude. The question is, can she build the political capital to be a staying force in the long run.
So what does this mean for Baltimore? It puts a little bit of pressure on Alonso and his tenure in Baltimore. Rhee's departure also narrows the lens of school reform to those at the top? Just how much of a difference does the school leader make? What has Alonso done in Baltimore and will he stay?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Community Uplift Important in Education Reform
There is an interesting article headlining yesterday's edition of the New York Times. It features a brief analysis of Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone and its community based approach to educational reform. The article also features briefs on the charter school place in education and recent presidential movements toward a more symbiotic uplift of depressed areas and schools. It’s an interesting read and I’ve included the link below.
Through practice, class, and observation I’ve come to believe that our educational system is certainly not an institution that functions in a bubble, insulated from larger outside forces. Rather, our schools are neighborhood landmarks and staples of the communities they exist within and serve. This can be wonderful for communities and schools that reflect achievement gap-type benefits, and punitive for those that continually suffer through their environment. The adage of our schools as a microcosm of society is relevant in this discussion, although not on the scale we typically associate it with. For the most part, schools exist as a microcosm of smaller, more community-representative societies – the neighborhoods where they draw their populations, the districts where they draw their support and resources, and the regions where they draw their emphasized place and funding.
I’ve often found myself frustrated in the classroom as I’ve come to associate classroom instruction as only a small piece of larger social issues that actively counter the efforts of teachers working in high poverty communities. A root issue of poverty defines our daily struggle and negatively impacts educational achievement more than what gets discussed. True, education plays a major role in that struggle, but the conditions with which cause our students to suffer on every level imaginable easily trump, counter, or at the very least work to impede the strides that could be made in a classroom every day. No less daunting of a task to overcome is a culture of social frustration and mistrust that often fails to recognize education as a viable option for improvement – perhaps rightly so considering the quality of and experiences associated with local public education.
Enter Geoffrey Canada and his experiment transforming the Harlem neighborhood through a blending of social services and high quality public education. Canada’s goals are lofty but right on. The uplift of our school system requires the transformation of the areas in which our worst-performing schools exist. These are not exclusive endeavors but mutually reinforcing movements – a full assault on poverty is necessary as the issues are so interwoven and complex that to address them in piecemeal fashion will fail through countering forces. Unfortunately, the applicability of such individual attention on a national scale, not to mention the dedicated effort and money required makes the experiment seem doomed to locality. Critiques brought up in the article are interesting: lack of real correlation between social services and student achievement (and therefore undeserving of federal dollars), funding (Canada relies on a significant portion of private support), and limited research supporting overall effectiveness.
Regardless of detractors, it’s my belief that the provision of basic services for families and students are necessary for the rates of success we need to see in the classroom. A solution must exist somewhere in an optimal blend of social service provision and charter school freedom with a dash of private sector support – basically an effort to address all from all. Lofty, naïve, inexperienced, check all the above. Still what we’re working so hard for in the classrooms won’t be fully realized until we are willing to recognize and provide for people in all types of conditions. Obama, Arne, Canada, KIPP, and other organizations realize the importance of community uplift as part of the school reform movement and are putting out grants and reform efforts to that effect (supported in the article). Even so, it gets stickier when trying to develop specific plans, allocate funds, and rally support.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/education/13harlem.html?_r=1&hp
Through practice, class, and observation I’ve come to believe that our educational system is certainly not an institution that functions in a bubble, insulated from larger outside forces. Rather, our schools are neighborhood landmarks and staples of the communities they exist within and serve. This can be wonderful for communities and schools that reflect achievement gap-type benefits, and punitive for those that continually suffer through their environment. The adage of our schools as a microcosm of society is relevant in this discussion, although not on the scale we typically associate it with. For the most part, schools exist as a microcosm of smaller, more community-representative societies – the neighborhoods where they draw their populations, the districts where they draw their support and resources, and the regions where they draw their emphasized place and funding.
I’ve often found myself frustrated in the classroom as I’ve come to associate classroom instruction as only a small piece of larger social issues that actively counter the efforts of teachers working in high poverty communities. A root issue of poverty defines our daily struggle and negatively impacts educational achievement more than what gets discussed. True, education plays a major role in that struggle, but the conditions with which cause our students to suffer on every level imaginable easily trump, counter, or at the very least work to impede the strides that could be made in a classroom every day. No less daunting of a task to overcome is a culture of social frustration and mistrust that often fails to recognize education as a viable option for improvement – perhaps rightly so considering the quality of and experiences associated with local public education.
Enter Geoffrey Canada and his experiment transforming the Harlem neighborhood through a blending of social services and high quality public education. Canada’s goals are lofty but right on. The uplift of our school system requires the transformation of the areas in which our worst-performing schools exist. These are not exclusive endeavors but mutually reinforcing movements – a full assault on poverty is necessary as the issues are so interwoven and complex that to address them in piecemeal fashion will fail through countering forces. Unfortunately, the applicability of such individual attention on a national scale, not to mention the dedicated effort and money required makes the experiment seem doomed to locality. Critiques brought up in the article are interesting: lack of real correlation between social services and student achievement (and therefore undeserving of federal dollars), funding (Canada relies on a significant portion of private support), and limited research supporting overall effectiveness.
Regardless of detractors, it’s my belief that the provision of basic services for families and students are necessary for the rates of success we need to see in the classroom. A solution must exist somewhere in an optimal blend of social service provision and charter school freedom with a dash of private sector support – basically an effort to address all from all. Lofty, naïve, inexperienced, check all the above. Still what we’re working so hard for in the classrooms won’t be fully realized until we are willing to recognize and provide for people in all types of conditions. Obama, Arne, Canada, KIPP, and other organizations realize the importance of community uplift as part of the school reform movement and are putting out grants and reform efforts to that effect (supported in the article). Even so, it gets stickier when trying to develop specific plans, allocate funds, and rally support.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/education/13harlem.html?_r=1&hp
Monday, October 11, 2010
Test Scores that Influence Reform May Be Inflated
Yesterday in the New York Times, there was a article called "On New York School Tests, Warning Signs Ignored." The article discusses that New York has placed a big focus on standarized testing in the schools. The test scores are used to determine whether or not policies are working and they are also used to determine which teachers receive tenure, which schools get funding, and which principals and teachers get bonuses. Although New York's scores have been increasing, there have been flaws in the process. "Evidence had been mounting for some time that the state's tests, which have formed the basis of almost every school reform effort of the past decade, has serious flaws." After years of having simlar tests and releasing the past test questions, the tests have become short and predictable. Teachers are now only focusing on the reading and math subjects and people are wondering if it is considered real learning if you know what is going to be on the tests. Some believe that authentic learning is not going on. There is evidence that the scores are now inflated and the scores do not truly reflect the proficiency level of New York's students.
This topic of standarized testing seems to always arise in conversation when discussing reform, measuring student's knowledge, and also measuring the effectiveness of teachers. I agree that some type of measurement is necessary, but it seems that so much focus on standardized tests can bring negative effects or even produce false information reflecting the academic levels of our students. If test scores are going to be a big factor in determining teacher effectiveness and student knowledge, the tests need to be accurately measure student understanding. We cannot just look at scores; we need to look at what they really mean. The questions on the tests need to meet national standards and we need to make sure that they hold our students to high standards. If we make the tests like the MSA and HSA easy to pass, then more students will be able to graduate, but the tests will hold no value. I do not know what the best way to measure students learning is, but if we are going to use standarized tests to do so, we need to make sure they are being using in a logical and meaningful way. I think that if we are truly going to improve education for our students in Baltimore, then we need to think about what the data from the MSA and HSA means. They should not just be a random number-I honestly do not know what getting a 412 on the Algebra HSA or a 400 on the Biology HSA means. I think that teachers have started to teach towards the tests and focus on HSA topics and problems to prepare our students. I think that doing so can take away from the educational experience. Recently I have heard that soon the MSA and HSA will not be used to measure our students' academic knowledge and that new tests will be implemented (and have heard that they are more aligned to the national standards). I think that we should hold our students in Baltimore to the same expectations as students all around the country.
This topic of standarized testing seems to always arise in conversation when discussing reform, measuring student's knowledge, and also measuring the effectiveness of teachers. I agree that some type of measurement is necessary, but it seems that so much focus on standardized tests can bring negative effects or even produce false information reflecting the academic levels of our students. If test scores are going to be a big factor in determining teacher effectiveness and student knowledge, the tests need to be accurately measure student understanding. We cannot just look at scores; we need to look at what they really mean. The questions on the tests need to meet national standards and we need to make sure that they hold our students to high standards. If we make the tests like the MSA and HSA easy to pass, then more students will be able to graduate, but the tests will hold no value. I do not know what the best way to measure students learning is, but if we are going to use standarized tests to do so, we need to make sure they are being using in a logical and meaningful way. I think that if we are truly going to improve education for our students in Baltimore, then we need to think about what the data from the MSA and HSA means. They should not just be a random number-I honestly do not know what getting a 412 on the Algebra HSA or a 400 on the Biology HSA means. I think that teachers have started to teach towards the tests and focus on HSA topics and problems to prepare our students. I think that doing so can take away from the educational experience. Recently I have heard that soon the MSA and HSA will not be used to measure our students' academic knowledge and that new tests will be implemented (and have heard that they are more aligned to the national standards). I think that we should hold our students in Baltimore to the same expectations as students all around the country.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Deflating the Value of a Baltimore City Diploma
This past Wednesday The Baltimore Sun published an article entitled “Md. high school graduation rate climbs.” The article explores the issue of bridge projects vs. actually passing the HSAs; which student groups perform well on the standardized tests and which don’t; and, perhaps most importantly, which whether the tests are a valid measure of student academic performance.
The article claims that “state officials believe that the High School Assessments have only raised the standards for students and enabled more to get a diploma.” However, the data shows that the number of students who did not graduate this year due to a failure to meet testing requirements tripled. In addition, the number of students completing Bridge projects increased from 5.8 to 8.1 percent this year.
While I don’t teach a course that is governed by an HSA exam, I do work at a school that serves high school students, and thus am dedicated to these children receiving a rigorous and competitive education. Matthew Joseph, of Advocates for Children and Youth, is quoted in the article stating that “they lowered the standard, basically … since nearly 100 percent of students are meeting the testing requirements, what is the value of having them at all?” I couldn’t agree more. If a test does not truly measure a student’s ability to perform in that content area, what purpose do they serve?
Can we as a teachers and a district celebrate if the value of the diploma we are sending our kids away with does not truly represent a meaningful level of skill?
I do not blame the test, the state officials, the teachers whose hands are tied by the rigidity of teaching a tested subject. Education is not the place for blame, rather it is the place for action. We must ask ourselves, as individuals committed to the cause of raising the bar for the children of Baltimore City, what needs to happen now? A more rigorous test, more extensive bridge projects, or do we abolish these removed forms of measurement altogether?
Most importantly, how do we ensure that children graduating from this school district, city, and state have more to show than a piece of paper that says Diploma?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
