Is long vs short days really the issue here?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/education/06time.html?_r=1&ref=education

This article, featured in the New York Times, focuses on the amount of school students must attend in America. It discusses longer days, longer weeks, and longer years. Despite all the evidence saying that our students need more instructional time, more and more school districts are moving to shorter weeks, shorter days and shorter years. For example, next year Oregon teachers will only have 165 days to teach their students, fifteen left than the standard 180 calendar. Again, American public school systems find themselves in a great contradiction.

However, I believe that there is a greater problem that no one is focusing on here: what is going on during the school day, week, and year no matter if it is shorter or longer? I have seen teachers accomplish so much in a 50 minute lesson and teachers barely get through anything in a 100 minute class. I think the greater issue that lies here is using time effectively. We must create schedules that maximize the amount of learning that is taking place in a classroom. With required drills, announcements, silent reading times, and other daily requirements that are en vogue in education today, we must make the most of the time that we have with our children. Yes, in a perfect world, we should be moving towards being in school longer. However, public education in America is failing. We should be putting all of our focus into determining why students are not learning in the time that they are in school. If a teacher is completely ineffective and time is being wasted, it does not matter if students are there for one hour or ten hours.

How uncommon is the common core?

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/06/30/36common.h30.html?tkn=QNQFTUgofPtXiqhiwMMHJq9hAGERMPRP%2F4sZ&cmp=clp-edweek

Last week, top curriculum leaders and board of education reps from 13 states assembled to discuss the implementation of common core standards at a meeting organized by the National Association of State Boards of Education.
States now have the task of amending their current curricula and, of course, tailoring their teacher assessment criteria to reflect it. However, they also need to educate teachers on what exactly the common core is and how to adjust their planning accordingly. This article suggests that the common core standards are so different from the current individual state standards that they need not look for similarities, but rather view them as a brand new agenda.

It is now our responsibility as educators to embrace all these changes, make them our personal classroom goals, and implement them to the best of our ability. New standards, new curriculum, new assessments…. New teacher?, oh well! These changes are happening and they’re happening fast. We are just passengers on this express train to student success…Welcome Aboard!

Accountability Is The Order of the Day... Even When We're Not Sure What It Means

The NEA has just taken a strong stance on teacher accountability: namely, that there should be some. But what does this mean? Though the new policy includes a statement on the importance of a strong teacher evaluation system, union members remain firmly opposed to using students' standardized test scores to drive this evaluation... even as fifteen states are currently part of a federally-backed initiative to do exactly that. The AFT has already spoken out in favor of a strong evaluation system at least partially based on "valid assessments;" one NEA member commented that the move towards Common Core standards might come hand in hand with the longed-for "valid assessment," while others were less than hopeful. "It's too late," said once science teacher from Louisiana. "It's going to take a major fight and a lot of money to change anything now."

At the national level, the new NEA policy is rather unspecific about what teacher accountability (and evaluation) actually looks like. As it is, with the Maryland Council for Educator Effectiveness's policy of basing fifty percent of a teacher's evaluation on student scores, it doesn't appear that the NEA's policy will have much practical bearing on our professional lives in Baltimore this coming fall.

Does Merit Base Pay Punnish Some Teachers?

Article: http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/Voices/Perspective/2010/Summer/Teachers-are-not-to-blame.aspx

When doing research for my position paper on merit based pay, I came across an interesting article against merit based pay. The article asserted that a merit based pay system has the potential to drive teachers away from the Urban school districts (due to low scoring on standardized test in these schools), and over to high performing schools (like in the county), where a teacher is sure to make more money. The article suggested that due to this, a merit based pay system punishes teachers who are placed in harder schools, with students who did not grow up speaking or hearing Standard English (which helps a student succeed on these test). This fact alone makes merit based pay an unfair system. It can even discourage teachers from teaching in the schools that need good teachers the most.

The article goes on to say that it is not a fair system of pay because students who live in more affluent areas and go to more affluent schools will continue to do better on the test because of the way the test is written, so these teachers will reap the most benefits of this type of pay system. According to the article, with a merit based pay system we will continue to punish children for being born in a certain zip code. Schools that are attended by primarily minority children in urban areas will have year round, drills, worksheets, and test prep in an effort to over prepare for the state test, and a teachers desire for a raise. This will just widen the achievement gap, as these methods are not only proven not to work, but simply move further away from project based learning, cooperative learning, and the higher level thinking our students truly need to succeed.

The article is also filled with a ton of great data to support the idea that bad teaching is not the real reason students are not succeeding.

Riddle Me This: The elusive panacea revealed

Diane Ravitch and David Brooks each espouse their own version of what it takes to fix American’s failing school and their opinions and personalities were bound to collide eventually.

Ravitch has entertained Brook’s “Smells like teen Spirit” editorial by asserting that Brooks misrepresented her views on charter schools, stating that she is always careful to point out that charter school success (and failure) varies widely.

She holds strong to her belief that some charters make their gains because they obtain additional resources, increase instructional time, limit the enrollment of students with disabilities or students who can not read, or remove students with learning problems.

As it relates to Baltimore City Public Schools, I’d like to focus on schools that increase instructional time. KIPP runs on both a longer school year and school day. The SEED school (a public boarding school) provides students with a comprehensive educational experience from Sunday evening through Friday afternoon, 24/7, during the school year.

These schools have achieved tremendous results with their students, and their “secret” ingredient seems elusive. Lucky for you, I’m about to reveal it. Okay, here it is. I’ll give you a few clues:

RIDDLE:

1. It flies (for some more often than others)

2. It occasionally stops (only in science fiction and in mathematics too complicated for me to grasp)

3. It rhymes with rhyme

You guessed it…. TIME. Educators are spending more TIME with these students and that time is being valued. Increasing student achievement for students in Baltimore City isn’t about the latest fad, whether that be revamped teacher evaluations, PBIS, or high-stakes testing. It’s about nose to the grindstone TIME. When educators spend time with students and that time is structured and effectively used, they learn on par with the best and brightest.

Students in Baltimore City do not need the latest in a series of so-called innovations. Plain and simple, students in Baltimore City need to be provided more opportunities to go to schools that offer more learning TIME.

No money=cutting school days?

In the NYtimes article from yesterday, it outlines the pain associated with cutting school budgets. The solution for many states and school districts is to decrease the hours within a school day/school year and/or cutting summer school programs. However with these cuts, many would argue that our children need more instruction time, but for some, the solution is the opposite.
The most successful programs in our nation today all contain longer schools days, a longer school year, and/or extensive summer school options. A radical approach suggested in the article discusses the possibility of year round schooling which could possibly eliminate expenses in some avenues yet providing students with an effective means to an education.
One piece to this puzzle I'd like to discuss is that if the school year does get shorter and shorter, and basic supply budgets are getting smaller and smaller, how can a teacher be effective in the classroom with such limited resources? The demand for high test scores and the pressure on teachers to improve performance seems impossible with such little wiggle room.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/education/06time.html?ref=education

Enough With the Analogies!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-merrow/david-brooks-diane-ravitc_b_891189.html

This article from The Huffington Post does a nice job of summarizing the main players facing off in terms of educational reform today. Merrow contrasts Ravitch and her "army" as those battling people such as Klein and Rhee over various education issues, but mainly focusing on testing.

However, I found the most interesting part of the article to be the fact that Merrow offers up one more analogy to illustrate the shortcomings and failures of the current educational system in place. Referring to struggling schools today as the pony express and highly functioning school models such as KIPP and TFA as a more effective pony express says, "that's nice, but what about all 50 million children in need of an education?"

This is very true, but Merrows's article stops short of providing an answer, and instead poses the question to readers. In turn, I ask how we can make these more effective educational models widespread? Why discredit these success stories due to their limited enrollment? Instead, let's figure out what works at these institutions and how to make it work in schools everywhere.

Legislators are ready to train teachers

Last week a bill was introduced in the Senate, Growing Excellent Achievement Training Academies for Teachers and Principals, which would encourage states to open teacher preparation academies aimed at producing well-rounded and classroom-ready educators.

Politico’s article reporting on the bill recognizes the growing public realization that teacher certification programs aren’t adequately preparing educators for the classroom, noting that over 60% of recent grads reported they were unprepared. These new preparation academies, in contrast, would treat incoming teachers like medical schools treat doctors.

Not only will the focus of these programs be hands-on learning, but these academies will also be held accountable for their students’ success as teachers. Interestingly enough, as Politico points out, while they will be held accountable for the success of their students, they won’t be held accountable to a rigid structure of exactly how they must operate to prepare new teachers.

In addition to tracking their graduates, they will be screening their entrants – also something rarely seen in traditional teacher preparation programs at most universities. These programs will be looking for candidates who have a high probability of being successful in the classroom.

It sounds a lot like TFA Summer Institute, but longer.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57582_Page2.html#ixzz1RIbZLt5A

Plan B Education Reform?

Article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/14/obama-proposes-plan-b-for-education-reform/

As time for the No Child Left Behind mandates slowly expire, a new education reform proposal has been suggested. This “Plan B” education reform would essentially give waivers to states to perform outside of the existing mandates of NCLB who can prove their systems are successful. While this proposal does place additional freedoms to perform outside of the stronghold of NCLB mandates, will it produce any viable results?

My first issue with the proposal is that it lets lawmakers off of the hook. Essential time is slipping away to refresh some of the NCLB mandates in continuing to raise test scores and boost student achievement. The idea that “states are gamers of the system,” reduces my faith that some states will continue to make gains with students, and in some cases lessens state accountability.

My second issue is that perhaps loose enforcement of NCLB rigorous standards are to blame for failing test scores to date. Lawmakers need to draft a proposal to reform NCLB mandates, giving additional time to truly make academic growth, instead of demanding high results without adequate means of truly achieving growth. I agree there should be some freedoms given to states to produce accurate results, but I don’t believe giving them autonomy of education policies is the best solution.

Whether You Like It or Not

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2011/06/28/2011-06-28_new_york_state_teachers_union_sues_to_block_rating_system_based_on_students_stan.htm

So, it seems that the reaction to the new educational trend is spreading. The York State Teachers Union is suing in an attempt to change the decision to implement a new teacher rating system stating that it relies too heavily on standardized test scores. The union filed suit on Monday, June 27th as we discussed this very issue in class. Union officials stated that they knew of and agreed upon the tests bearing 20%of a teacher’s rating, but have now come to find that there is a new state regulation that allows districts to place twice as much weight on the scores. HA! Imagine their reaction to the Baltimore City contract negotiation….laying out 50% of a teacher’s annual effort to be determined by the results of one test! This article goes on to state one of the concerns that continues to rise, which is that this will lead to more “teaching the test”. It is felt that, in reality, this process goes against the actual goal of quality education for all. This was the first time the union has sued the state in more than 40 years.

It seems that if you don’t eat it, you will be force fed. Even here in Baltimore, the contract had to be voted on twice because it didn’t pass the first time. The second time, it passed with absolutely no support from the teachers on the voting panel. So, gear up and arm yourself with as many msa-like test questions that you can and disperse them as warm-ups, drills, classwork, quizes, exit tickets and homework until April. Absolutely, this is what you have to do… whether you like it or not.

Does anyone know what it takes??

After our discussion on principals and principals’ evaluations in our final class, I thought I would write about the same topic for this post. An article from The New York Daily News with the headline “'Least-trustworthy' principal in New York City public schools finally fired from Brooklyn post” poses a similar question I had from class: what, exactly, does it take to get the boot if you’re a principal, and who ultimately decides?

The article tells the story of Andrew Buck, a New York City principal at the Middle School for Art and Philosophy, and his turbulent history in his position. Surveys of his C-rated school found a violent and hectic environment where 40% of the students said they felt unsafe in the halls. He was voted ‘least trustworthy’ principal in 2008 by the teachers union, and made headlines in 2010 when he sent bizarre and almost nonsensical letters home to parents filled with grammatical errors about withholding textbooks from children.

An eighth grade teacher at Buck’s school commented: "I cried tears of joy… teachers were getting hurt, and the kids were running amok - he ran the school into the ground.” This teacher was assaulted by a student during class last year and openly blames Buck for conditions at the school. Many parents are also interviewed in the article and discuss his poor leadership and dangerous school environment.

I do not think that anyone would argue that this article paints Buck in a poor light, and that he clearly made a lot of poor decisions while running his school. Many of us have probably seen similar administrators or heard stories like this one. What I found most interesting in the article, however, was not the details of his tenure, but instead, what was glazed over: the process for his removal. The article begins by saying “The Department of Education is canning an infamous Brooklyn principal “ and later points out that Buck has been put on “desk duty” until he can be fired. How does this work? And since when does the US Department of Education step in to remove principals? Since our discussion on evaluations in class, I would be interested to look deeper into this story and the process it took to remove this man from his office.

Direct vs. Online Instruction

Article: http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2011/06/15/03hybrid.h04.html?intc=mvs

As we have entered the 21^st century, there is undoubtedly a race to integrate the use of technology in the classroom. As highlighted by the article on Education Week, as the debate over how to raise test scores in schools across the nation has evolved, so has the approach to bring about innovation in the classroom. These hybrid charter schools offer in-person instructors as well as online classes in a structured setting. While the need to increase the use of technology in the classroom, I think we should continue to find solutions that balance the effect of quality teaching with reinforcement from technological resources that best help our students. Using this philosophy, I believe we should continue to expand the idea of hybrid schools due to a few reasons.

As education funding is being cut, allowing face-to-face instruction to be supported with online instruction and assessments allow for teachers to oversee independent learning from students. Additionally, teachers are there to manage the students and oversee social interaction of students as they work independently or in small groups. Overall this idea seems most supported due to the various models that schools can choose in the effort to create project based and collaborative learning opportunities. Some students support the model due to the need to alleviate overcrowded classrooms.

Online instruction also provides these schools some degree of innovation and flexibility in choosing their curriculums. These teachers can then provide direct support to struggling students by giving them additional assignments to clarify any misconceptions. Using online instruction, students can be assessed, receive additional work from teachers, and continue to complete more work to assist in overall mastery of the material.

I believe we should support the use of more online resources for general instruction in Baltimore City, especially as we are shifting towards our 2014 Common Core Goals. By providing additional opportunities for online instruction we would best assist our students’ ability to test, as we will begin to use computer-based standardized assessments.

Just the tip of the Iceberg

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-msa-scores-20110629,0,818657.story

Baltimore City's drop in MSA scores has been on hot topic for the past couple weeks. As a middle school teacher, this is something that has been of particular interest to me. There has been so much speculation as to what has caused the scores to drop significantly from last year when the district had been making progress for years. Cheating seems to be the easiest answer. There have always been cheating rumors and then came the schools that were officially caught cheating. This year, the testing officials made sure to put an end to that and we have to scores to prove that. However, the more I think about it, the more I don't think cheating is what we should be up in arms about.

Here's a list of things that I think should concern us more than just the idea of cheating:

1. It is concerning to me that we have created a system so reliant on ONE TEST that educators have prioritized cheating over student learning. We have reached a point with high stakes testing that, above pride and dignity, test scores conquer all.

2. It is also concerning to me that we have created a test that almost no one truly believes in. In my school, at district wide functions, in almost all conversations with other middle school teachers, people are doubting the MSA. Teachers do not believe it is rigorous enough. Teachers don't feel that its truly efective in testing someone's ability. It's not about reading, it's about answering MC questions. The list of complaints go on and on. Yet, this test determines so much for ourselves as professionals, our schools and, most importantly, our students. Why should I care about cheating on a test that I do not believe truly measures anything anyway?

3. Lastly, the passing scores concern me. Try to find what exact percentage is passing for each test in each grade level. I bet you would have more trouble than you think. I have heard rumors and whispers that these passing scores are not what you think they are. Students that are 'advanced' or 'proficient' are not the high flyers we imagine them to be. When passing rates do increase, are the kids getting smarter or the bar to pass getting lower?

Smaller Schools the Answer?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/nyregion/a-failing-school-not-to-these-students-at-jamaica-high.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=education

Today, the New York Times featured this article on "failing" Jamaica High. Given Ds two years in a row and boasting a graduation rate of 50%, the school is slated to shut down after it's last class of freshman has graduated (or not). The school will then be "shut down" and filled with four smaller schools - a concept that is heavily supported by Mayor Bloomberg.

Here in Baltimore, the same idea has been applied. Many of the mega-schools of the past have been "shut down" and filled with two or more new schools. The high school formerly known as Northern High School was shut down and replaced with W.E.B. Du Bois High School, Reginald Lewis High School and the Samuel Banks High School. After looking this history up one article stated that this school transformation happened in order to, "make high schools smaller to help increase the student teacher ratio, increase parental involvement and improve student safety." This is just one of the many examples of school "replacement" found across the city. And not only are these schools replaced with several smaller schools, these new schools often have "alternative focuses" such as technology, trades, or the arts.

But is this strategy really working? Does closing down a large, "failing" high school and replacing it with several smaller, "themed" high schools within one building the best way to help failing schools? Instead of working with what is there (and shown by the NYTimes article), partially working, it seems that the "best" move is to simply close a school and give it a new name (or several) and attach some sort of career-based theme. However, are we really seeing results? Are these new, smaller, "arts" and "technology" schools really producing better educational experiences "for the kids?" Or is it just an expensive attempt at rebranding? This article, as well as the current situation in Baltimore City, makes me curious about whether or not it is worthwhile to go through all of these expensive changes in order to create smaller schools. Instead, I wonder about completely revamping an existing large high school in order to increase retention, enrollment, and educational results. Are many more smaller schools really the way to successful school reform?

"Shocking" results of a new study

Article:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2011/06/the_us_department_of_education_2.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CampaignK-12+%28Education+Week+Blog%3A+Politics+K-12%29

For those of us who spent the last year (or longer) working with students in Baltimore City, we are all too aware of the disparities that are taking place in the public schools system. Apparently, to some people, this is news. According to the article “New Federal Data Tool Reveals Widespread Disparities” a new recent study, done by the U.S Department of Education, found new data to support what many of us already know; “Students across the country do not have equal access to a rigorous education”.

The U.S Department of Education collected data from some 72,000 schools, making sure to include all districts in the country. The department’s office of civil rights (which I did not know existed) desired to get a clear idea of how schools compare with each other across states. Their conclusions were pretty grim.

Perhaps the most shocking part of this article was the idea that there are still people out there who are unaware of how drastically unequal education is in America. The article listed many “shocking” statistics, yet none of them surprised me in the least. According to the article, schools that consisted primarily of African American students, have teachers that are twice as likely to have two years or less teaching experience. Again, that main criticism many have for Teach for America, (put the least experienced teachers in the most at risk schools), echo’s loudly here.

The article also said that this was the first year the U.S Department of Education asked about Advanced Placement courses, students with disabilities, participation in algebra, and if the school was public, charter, magnet, or an alternative school. The goal of the study was to “better enforce civil rights in schools”, interesting as this is, we often forget that the fight for equality in our schools is also a fight for our students civil rights. There was as usual not a lot of discussion on what the next step was, but there is more data to come in the next few months. This new data is said to include how many students are promoted per year, teacher retention, school funding, and teacher absenteeism. I am sure we will continue to be “shocked” by the results.

High-Stakes Testing in Pre-K?

Proposed rules for this year’s Race to the Top competition for early-childhood education aid focus on creating standards and assessing pre-K students.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, winning states of the Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge awards will be required to: devise early-learning/development standards and assessments for pre-K student, develop/administer kindergarten-readiness tests, develop systems for assessing early-education programs, collaborate with various agencies providing non-education related early-childhood services, establish statewide standards for what pre-K students should know, and incorporate said data into the state’s longitudinal data system (Reported by Education Weekly on July 1, 2011).

These requirements have several apparent benefits and pitfalls. On the plus side, developing standards for kindergarten readiness would prevent students from entering kindergarten already behind their peers. Many parents struggle with the decision of when to send their children, especially boys, to kindergarten. A kindergarten readiness test could help determine whether or not children are developmentally ready for the kindergarten setting. Establishing statewide standards for what pre-K students should know could decrease the wide variability in pre-K programs. If all pre-K programs were required to teach certain developmental and kindergarten readiness skills, there might not be such a range in skill set and exposure to content among the incoming kindergarten class. Moreover, the requirement to collaborate with agencies dealing with early-childhood issues, such as health, encourages states to take a more holistic approach to early-childhood education.

Now for the pitfalls. I realize that assessment does not necessarily mean filling in a bubble sheet, but I cannot help fearing what could become of these kindergarten readiness or other pre-K tests. So much of early-childhood education involves exploration, motor skills, creativity, social skills, and other performance-based tasks that are hard to measure and assess without careful observation. Will the state create a rubric and send examiners to observe children for a day? Or will pre-K students actually have to sit and take a written test like their older peers? I can see how it would be easy to measure whether or not a child can recognize numbers and letters, but what about the other essential skills that children develop in pre-K and kindergarten? Have we become so obsessed with data and assessment that we could lose the very essence of what early-childhood education is all about?

We know that the achievement gap begins at a very young age, before children even enter pre-K. Thus, creating strong pre-K programs and ensuring that all students enter kindergarten with certain developmental and academic skills could create a strong foundation for students once they begin school. However, I worry that applying the same pressure for data and assessment to pre-K as NCLB did for older grades will result in focusing on “test prep” in the early-childhood environment rather than cultivating young, thoughtful and imaginative learners.