by Brian

Jaime Escalante died last week.  Every math teacher knows who Escalante was, because he was the subject of the inspiring 1988 film "Stand and Deliver."  Fourteen of his students were accused of cheating on the AP Calculus exam in 1982 by the Educational Testing Service.  Twelve of them retook the test under strict supervision and passed again. The reason they were suspected of cheating was not so much the similarity of their answers, but that in their high school, Garfield, 85 percent of the students were low income, most of the parents were
grade-school dropouts, faculty morale was bad, and expectations were low.

Jay Mathews wrote recently about Escalante's teaching. He published a book about him in 1988 titled "Escalante: The Best Teacher in America".  He also writes a blog for The Washington Post called Class Struggle that is well worth checking out.  In the article about Escalante he says: " The stunning success at Garfield led U.S. presidents to endorse
Escalante's view that impoverished children can achieve as much as
affluent kids if they are given enough extra study time and
encouragement to learn".

I have to ask: is that really all there is to it?  Give them extra study time and encouragement?  Because I'm doing that, and it's not working.  The problem seems to be that while I am giving them extra study time, they're not taking it.  And while I encourage them to work hard and get smart, they just don't do the work.

I think what was missed by many in Escalante's wonderful story was that the extra study time was not given, it was mandatory.  He demanded it: three hours after school, and extra time on Saturdays and in the summer.  Remember too that Escalante was there for those extra hours.  (See Mark's post about extra hours.) And the encouragement was often a little sarcastic, which can work in a relationship with a lot of trust, but can also get you in a lot of trouble pretty quickly in this day.  

So what can I do to be like Jaime Escalante?  Because I really do want to be like him.

by Brian

Our students just finished taking the renamed high stakes state tests.  The High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) has replaced the WASL.  Not quite what the kids were hoping when Randy Dorn said he was getting rid of the WASL.  This week it was Reading and Writing; next month will be Math and Science.  It looks increasingly likely that the scores our students achieve on these tests will be used in our yearly evaluation.  In Florida it's possible that teachers' salaries will also be tied to test results.  Half of their salaries may be tied to their state comprehensive and end-of-course exams.  Which sounds not so much like merit pay, but de-merit pay.  Instead of paying good teachers more, they'll pay teachers whose students underachieve less.  And the drum beat to fire bad teachers goes on.  (See Tom's post.)The cover of the March 15 Newsweek is a blackboard covered with the sentence: We must fire bad teachers.

So I was reading an article by George Packer on President Obama's first year in office in the March 15 edition of The New Yorker and I came upon an amazing anecdote.  Packer was writing about Obama's frustration at being unable to hold the banks fully to account for the financial collapse.  Apparently Obama would have been happy if Timothy Geithner, his Treasury Secretary, had recommended the top bank officials be held accountable by forcing entire management teams out of their jobs.  Packer writes: Geithner felt that firing the leadership of the bailed-out banks would ultimately cost taxpayers money, owing to the loss of expertise, and would inevitably punish executives who were not to blame.  The President reluctantly agreed.  "You always admire someone willing to do the responsible thing, even when it is terrible politics," Sperling (a counsellor to Geithner) said.  "But you could see how frustrated he was."

Too bad Arne Duncan and Geithner can't trade jobs.  Duncan likes firing people, and he doesn't mind losing expertise or punishing teachers who are not to blame.

It's starting to get to me.  Fire the teachers, but give the bankers another bonus.

by Brian 

The cherry trees are blooming, so it must be pink slip season.  For many years my district was spared the trauma of using the Reduction in Force (RIF) language in our Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).  But last year's state budget disaster forced us into implementing it, and we gave notices of non-renewal to 16 teachers.  Thankfully they were all eventually hired back, as we weathered the cuts with attrition and federal back-fill dollars.  This year as the budget crisis continues we may not be so lucky.

I teach math, so I like rules that are consistent.  You need rules to make a RIF list.  Almost universally they are based on seniority.  But how do you calculate seniority?

Continue reading →

by Brian

The state has mandated that all students must now pass Algebra and Geometry to graduate from high school. Therefore, many students and parents have decided to forgo taking a Pre-Algebra class, because it will not count as a math credit towards graduation.  The dogma, the unquestionable belief,  that we teachers are sworn to uphold is that all children can learn. 

Yes, they can.  But they need all the knowledge that will allow the new learning to make sense.   So what do you do when a student comes to you and says: "You're wrong, this is too hard"?  

Continue reading →

by Brian
 

Everyone has their own list of characteristics that great teachers share.  And many subscribe to the opinion of James Starkey, who recently wrote in Education Week that: "As dorky as this sounds, great teaching happens by magic. It isn’t something that can be taught. I’m not even sure that good teaching can be taught."

I guess you'd call that the great teachers are born not made theory.  I do think some people are born to it.  My friend Bonnie started great and has been getting greater for the last 30 years.  But I'm sure she also believes teachers can get better, and maybe good ones can eventually become great.  So who's right?

Continue reading →

by Brian
 

I just finished grading final tests and recording semester grades for my math students.  I've been teaching for 25 years now, and I have a confession to make:  not every kid who got a D from me could really pass the final in Algebra or Geometry.  But what they lacked in ability they made up in effort.  They did every assignment; they corrected every test.  They came in before and after school for extra help. They may not have understood the subject very well, but I guarantee it went through their brain.  My rationale is this:  they're not going to take that D and get into the University of Washington, but they're going to take the credit that goes with it and continue to try to graduate from high school.  I never meant that D to be a guarantee that my students had mastered the curriculum. It meant that their performance was below average, but that they had made a bona fide effort.

But I guess the State Board of Education caught on to me.  

Continue reading →

by Brian
 

The Seattle Times editorial board and a guest editorial team of Dean Allen of Partnership for Learning and Brad Smith of Washington Roundtable recently continued their campaign against State Superintendent Randy Dorn's proposal to delay and rethink the math and science graduation requirements.  The Times says it's a "gaffe". Allen and Smith say: "First, legislators must reject any retreat on graduation requirements
in math and science. Once in place, these requirements will help ensure
that more students graduate prepared for college and work."

I've been thinking a lot about what's wrong with that argument.  I think I finally figured it out: nothing. They're right.  The students who do graduate will be better prepared for college and work.  But I see the Law of Unintended Consequences at work.  If these requirements are left in place, the ones who graduate will be better prepared, because fewer students will graduate.  Faced with the hurdles of Algebra, Geometry, and Algebra 2 many will just give up.  Is that what we really want?

Continue reading →

 by Brian

 "Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."  Benjamin Franklin

Earlier this month Gov. Chris Gregoire released her 2010 supplemental state budget,
which would fill a $2.6 billion hole in the budget for 2009–11 through
service eliminations, reductions or suspensions. As required by law,
she submitted a budget based on currently available revenue. And she basically said she hates it.

Senator Rosa Franklin recently wrote a guest editorial in The Seattle Times calling for an overhaul of our state's regressive tax system.  If we are going to really deal with school funding we are going to have to talk about taxes.  No politician in this day and age can consider reelection without having a default position of no new taxes.  But given the projected $2.6 billion shortfall, something must be done.

Last month I participated in a policy symposium where our task was to prioritize the implementation of the education reform bill, ESHB 2261.  It's feeling more and more like an exercise in futility to talk about education reform when it requires funding that just isn't there.

The present taxation system was cobbled together over the last hundred years or so, and little of it makes sense in the 21st century.  People who earn less than $20,000 pay 17.3% of their income to state taxes.  People who earn between $99,000 and $198,000 pay 7.6% of their income.  In tough economic times like these state revenues dwindle because spending decreases, and a big piece of our tax system is the sales tax.

Seven years ago the Gates Commission recommended the tax-reform plan that Senator Franklin has championed. It calls for an income tax, which is a tough, but necessary sell. In their report to the legislature in 2003 the members of the commission said it might take ten years before their recommendations would be enacted.  Looks like they were right on that one.

If we are serious about education reform and funding, and we must be, then we need to overhaul our regressive tax system and create a state income tax.  If we don't the only options will be to drastically cut public services or raise taxes and make our present system even more regressive.  If we truly want a world class education system in Washington State we're going to have to find a better way to pay for it.

by Brian

I finally found the definitive word on how we are moving from the WASL to the High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) on the OSPI website:

*Mathematics: In spring 2010, high school
students will take the math High School Proficiency Exam, which is
based on the 2006 Standards. Beginning in spring 2011, students will
take end-of-course assessments, based on the 2008 Standards, in Algebra
I/Integrated I and Geometry/Integrated II. Students who already
completed one or more of those classes will take a comprehensive exam
in April 2011. Students in the class of 2013 and beyond must pass both
end-of-course assessments or the comprehensive exam to meet the math
graduation requirement. Students in middle school who take Algebra
I/Integrated I or Geometry/Integrated II will take the grade-level
state assessment (for NCLB purposes) and the appropriate end-of-course
assessment.

I'm starting to get this sorted out.  The last WASL was given in August 2009, and is replaced by the High School Proficiency Exams in Reading, Writing, Math, and Science in the spring of 2010. (This year's sophomores are still exempt from needing to pass the Math and Science HSPE's). 

Except in math, which will transition into End of Course Exams in the spring of 2011.  And except for the freshmen who are taking Algebra 1 this year, who will be taking Geometry next year.  They will take a comprehensive exam on Algebra 1 and Geometry in April 2011.  That's 10 months after they finished Algebra, and 2 months before they will finish Geometry.  Not exactly End of Course timing. 

And the advanced students who are taking Algebra or Geometry in Middle School will be rewarded by having to take 2 tests: the Measurement of Student Progress for their grade level, and the End of Course Exam for their math class.

Did you get that?  Doesn't it seem just a little confusing, and maybe unfair?  Yet that is the law for this year's freshmen.  If they don't pass 5 high stakes exams, 3 of which have never even been field tested, they won't graduate.  But it could be worse: Texas has 12!

Continue reading →

by Brian
 

David Horsey of the Seattle PI has weighed in with the best opinion piece about Superintendent Randy Dorn's proposal to modify the math graduation requirement that I have read so far.

We are having parent conferences at my school this week, and yesterday I heard the parents of one of my better Algebra students tell me how frustrated they have been with the WASL. Their daughter is a bright, highly motivated freshman who seems to like my class and be comfortable with the curriculum. But her parents told me she did not meet standard in math on the WASL in 4th grade or 8th grade, and she has a lot of anxiety about taking the state test (whatever it will be) next year. It makes me angry to read the Seattle Times editorial board opposing Dorn's proposal: "It sends a disheartening message to students who want to excel and who understand that the route to higher education — whether college or trade school — is by meeting high standards." What do they think the message has been for the last ten years for the 50% of our students who have not met the math standard? Inspiring?? What makes them think that the WASL has been a reasonable measure of what a high school graduate should know? Not a college-bound student, just a high school graduate ready to go to work. It's time to answer that basic question.

I made an appointment with my Representative today to talk to him about where the bar should be set for graduation. I sent him Horsey's article too. I encourage you to read it, and talk to your Representative too. Our students deserve a realistic standard.