Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Art of teaching’

Tests Don’t Measure What’s REALLY Important

May 8, 2014 Leave a comment

Charles Blow’s op ed piece in today’s NYTimes, “In College, Nurturing Matters“, describes the impact college professors had on Charles Blow as attended Grambling College a few decades ago. He described the professor who read his essay aloud in class that earned him the applause of his classmates, the professors who encouraged him at every turn as he progressed through college, and the six measures of college experience that dramatically increased the probability that graduates would “have a strong sense of well-being and engagement at work”. Those measures, drawn from a survey conducted by Purdue University, were:

• (Having) at least one professor at [College] who made me excited about learning.

• (Having) professors at [College] (who) cared about me as a person.

• (Having) a mentor who encouraged me to pursue my goals and dreams.

• (Working) on a project that took a semester or more to complete.

• (Having) an internship or job that allowed me to apply what I was learning in the classroom.

• (Being) extremely active in extracurricular activities and organizations while attending [College].

I read Charles Blow’s column today through two lens: David and Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book I am listening to as I drive to consulting assignments and my dismay at the over-emphasis on standardized achievement tests as the ultimate metric for measuring teacher, student, and school achievement.

The David and Goliath chapter I just listened to talked about the Big Fish in the Little Pond phenomenon, which describes why is it often more advantageous for someone who is a strong student to attend a less prestigious school than a larger and more prestigious university. The reasons almost matched the list above because invariably the stronger students get the full attention of professors and greater opportunities and if a student is in the lower half of the top 1% (e.g. a student in the lower third of an Ivy League school or MIT) they will not get as much attention as a student in the upper half of the top 40% (e.g. a student in the top third of a State college). I have to believe that Charles Blow could have gotten in to a “brand” college or university, but I think Gladwell would assert that Blow was better off at a small college where he could get the kind of attention he received as an undergraduate at Grambling.

The second thing that struck me as I read Blow’s column was that the qualities of college that result in graduates possessing “…a strong sense of well-being and engagement at work” cannot be measured through the use of the standardized achievement tests that are the ultimate metric used by “school reformers”. That led me to enter the following comment:

The “school reform” movement’s emphasis on standardized tests as a means of measuring good teachers completely overlooks whether a teacher gets students excited about learning, whether a teacher cares about students as individuals, and whether teachers are good mentors to students. The emphasis on testing also undervalues any assignments or projects that take more than a semester to complete. Schools also tend to reserve internships for a select group of students and completely overlook the embedded learning that takes place when students work part time. And last but not least, when schools need to cut the budget to provide I-pads to take on-line multiple choice tests the first thing to go are “frills” like extra-curricular activities and field trips. In our fevered desire to boost scores on tests that are given once a year we have sucked the life out of our schools. Is it any wonder our students are disengaged?

In our passion to reduce the measurement of schooling to a mathematical formula we have completely overlooked the human dimension of school… and in so doing we are taking the joy and soul out of our schools, out of our youth, and out of childhood.

TFA’s Link to the 1%

March 5, 2014 Leave a comment

Yesterday’s Naked Capitalism cross-posted an article written by Pruning Shears blogger Dan Fejes describing Teach for America (TFA)’s link to the privatization movement. In the opening of the article he provides a brief description of TFA’s genesis:

(TFA) was a component of the Americorps program created during the Clinton administration, and plugged willing but un- or under-qualified young people into vacant positions in low income schools for two years. Identify schools that need teachers and have energetic, idealistic recent college grads work to make a difference. Sounds great.

Readers of progressive blogs know how it’s turned out: TFA is seemingly joined at the hip with the privatization movement’s leaders and serves as a low wage labor pipeline to staff newly opened privatized charter schools. Fejes’ post concludes with a good synopsis of how the privatization machinery works— and how TFA could avoid feeding the beast:

The model works like this: Mandate standardized testing, use TFA recruits to teach to the test, use the test results to “prove” the effectiveness of TFA, use the TFA pipeline to close schools and fire teachers, and replace both with charters staffed by lower paid, non-union TFA employees. (And please note that charters go tits up with all the orderliness and accountability of Freedom Industries.)

TFA could resist this trend if it wanted. It could refuse to send recruits to districts that have had (or are considering) substantial layoffs. It could offer to send recruits to public schools as assistants instead of replacements, which would be a huge benefit to schools. TFA chooses not to, though, and that speaks volumes. By all accounts it is content with the status quo (content enough not to buck it, anyway). In the absence of a clear and forceful refusal to cooperate, the only reasonable conclusion is that TFA is happy to collaborate with those who view schools as “ecosystems of investment opportunity.”

Because I want to assume the noblest of intentions in leaders, I believe that Wendy Kopp (TFAs founder) was and is sincerely interested in providing teachers for classrooms that serve children raised in poverty and knew that in order to do so she needed capital…. and the only people with capital were “…those who view schools as “ecosystems of investment opportunity”. 

Assuming Ms. Kopp had noble intentions, here’s another scenario that could have provided TFA with the capital it needed: the federal government could have provided grant money.

“Wait!” I hear you saying, “The federal government doesn’t have grant money to hire teachers!”

Here’s my response to that: IF the federal government was truly interested in helping schools who serve children raised in poverty, instead of spending millions on Race to the Top grants, they could have poured money into states with the requirement that they use the money to hire additional teachers for school districts that serve children in poverty and TFA could have staffed those schools and allied themselves with existing teachers’ colleges and/or teachers unions to provide the training. Under this scenario State Departments of Education, State teachers colleges, and local school districts could have all shared in the benefits of the grant money. Of course private corporations who give tests, provide data, and use non-union staff would have suffered… and campaign contributors who believe in market based solutions to every problem would be dismayed… but students attending schools with high concentrations of poverty would have more support and fewer teacher layoffs would have occurred.

As Fejes indicated in his first paragraph, TFA’s basic premise “sounds great”. Too bad the only source of money for the idea that sounded great was the 1%… and too bad that our government decided privatization was the way forward for PUBLIC schools.

 

Babies and Bathwater

January 22, 2014 Leave a comment

Diane Ravitch’s blog post this morning reports on a terrible piece of legislation proposed by the North Carolina legislature. The legislature takes two good ideas— career ladders and technology enhanced individualized learning— and corrodes them with two very bad ideas— the notion that teachers are like the wait staff at McDonalds and the notion that public school’s primary purpose is the dispensing of information. Basically, the NC legislature is using technology to put the factory school model on steroids instead of using technology to transform the mission of schools.

The notion of having a career ladder with three tiers is not unlike the structure used in colleges… and having the tiers be labelled “Apprentice/Master/Career”, as proposed in the NC legislation, is supported by research and mirrors what is in place in most school districts across America. Teachers need 3-7 years to learn their craft after which their performance remains at a uniformly high level. Some teachers, who are recruited to serve as “coaches”, are compensated for their expertise and their willingness to assist in evaluations. This is not substantially different from our current arrangement. The typical teacher contract differentiates probationary teachers from teachers who are on continuing contracts and offers a stipend or released time for department heads. It would make sense to me for teachers who achieve continuing contract status to receive a significant bump in pay upon achieving that performance level instead of incrementally advancing in pay over a period of years, a part of the NC legislation. Unlike the NC model, which proposes a 60/30/10 distribution of teachers, I would envision a career ladder model with a 10/70/20 distribution. This mirrors the reality of most districts where roughly 10% of the work force is on probation striving to achieve continuing contract status, 70% of the work force earning a solid middle class wage; and 20% receiving a stipend for coaching or team leadership responsibilities either currently or in the past. This model is based on the fact that most teachers are doing a good-to-excellent job of teaching… a fact that has been substantiated by every method used thus far to evaluate teacher performance.

The notion of using technology to personalize or individualize instruction is one that is happening now… and it’s not all bad… and it isn’t going away. Engaged parents are buying software for their children to help them learn how to read before they enroll in school, how to do well on the tests that public schools use to identify “gifted and talented” children (tests that districts embraced long before Pearson, NCLB or RTTT) and how to acquire skills not offered in public schools (e.g. foreign language, astronomy, etc). Many of these educational software packages are in the form games that are far more interesting than stand-and-deliver instruction and effectively allow the child to progress at their own pace. Disaffected parents— home-schoolers and un-schoolers— are developing DIY education programs for their children using technology. In years past these parents often sent their youngsters to public schools once the content advanced.  But as a result of the multitude of on-line courses available, the relentless emphasis on standardized testing in public education, and the expansion of parent networks, more and more parents are homeschooling all the way through high school. Public schools need to find ways to integrate technology into the classroom and individualize learning the same way the commercial software packages an computer games do.

I believe that when those of us who oppose privatization should make it clear we are not rejecting reasonable ideas like career ladders and the use of technology. If we argue against reasonable ideas embedded in unreasonable legislation we play into the notion that we are defenders of the status quo. We need to avoid throwing out babies with the bathwater.