By Tom

We were having a “conversation” one day during a faculty meeting. It was during one of those Teacher Learning Days that happen before the school year starts. We had just been given the specialist schedule, which, for those of you who don’t teach elementary, is the schedule that tells you when your kids go to PE, music or the library. In other words, it tells you when you get your daily, 30-minute planning time.

The fourth grade teachers were upset. “We always get our planning time in the morning! Why should the fourth graders always get the bad schedule! That’s just not fair!”

I’m not normally one to enter into a vigorous debate between various groups of middle-aged women, but sometimes I can’t help myself. 

“Actually, that is the only fair way to do it,” I said. “Think about it: if one grade level has to have a bad schedule – and apparently it does – then the fairest way to do it is to give the same grade level the bad schedule every single year. That way, every kid gets it only once. But if you move it around every year, then you practically guarantee that some kids will get it more than once and some kids will never have it.”

“Of course,” I continued, “that’s only if we’re looking at this situation in terms of what’s best for the kids. If we’re talking about what’s best for teachers, then that’s a different conversation.”

I’d like to say that my razor-sharp logic won the day, but I can’t. My comments weren’t appreciated, least of all from the fourth grade team, who only glared at me with their collective stink-eye. And as I recall, it was my grade level that ended up with the crappy schedule that year.

But seriously, how often do we really regard policy decisions from the perspective of the educational stakeholders who hold the largest stakes? How often do we look at the long-term benefits for the greatest number of students when we decide policy?

Continue reading →

By Tom

There’s a failing school in my district. I know about it because their service area is right next to ours. We share a boundary. They’ve been failing for several years, so they’ve reached the stage at which their punishment entails a “turnaround.” They have to get rid of their administrator and half of their teachers.

As you might expect, they have a high proportion of students living in poverty (over 80%) and a large number of English language learners (over 40%). As you might not expect, they also have a lot of great teachers. Teachers who are really good at teaching high-needs students.

But apparently they’re not good enough.

Last week, my district sent an email to every elementary teacher, telling us about the situation and inviting us to become a part of the team that will take on this exciting challenge. They also explained the plan that will guide this team’s work over the next several years. They borrowed the plan from a school they visited; one of those 90/90/90 schools, where high-poverty students earn high scores on high-stakes tests. I looked it over and gave it some thought.

Continue reading →

By Tom

I think I finally get what’s going on in Wisconsin. It took me long enough. In fact, it took reading George Will’s latest column to understand exactly why Wisconsin is such a big deal.

Wisconsin’s Republican governor Scott Walker wants to eliminate collective bargaining for most public employee unions, including all public school teachers. His stated rationale is that doing so would save the state money. It’s hard to figure out the logic in this, since collective bargaining, at least for teachers, doesn’t actually happen at the state level. It happens at the local level; between a school district and the local association that represents its teachers.

Why should Walker even care about collective bargaining?

To understand why, you need to understand the other half of his proposed legislation. You see, he wants to end collective bargaining, but he also wants to mandate a yearly authorization for public employee unions. They’d have to undergo an expensive, annual vote by their members in order to stay alive.

For most teachers, their experience with the union is based primarily on the agreement that their local association and district hammer out. In the absence of collective bargaining, most teachers would have little reason to value their union. Why would they? The district would dictate the terms of their employment, and they’d have to either agree to them or leave.

And that brings us to the whole piece about the annual vote. Teachers, with little reason to value their union, would have little reason to support it. Why would they? Why would they willingly pay hundreds of dollars per year for a union that can’t do anything to help them? Sooner or later, they’d vote it down. Probably sooner.

But still; why would Walker want this? What’s in it for him?

It’s all about politics. A big part of our union dues goes to the state association, which uses it to lobby for pro-education legislation. They also use members’ political donations to elect pro-education candidates. Thus, when George Will tells us that public employees elect their own bosses, he does have a point. In Washington State, it would have been hard to imagine Governor Gregoire winning without the support of the Washington Education Association.

Walker wants to end collective bargaining. This would diminish the union’s power, resulting in a decreased level of support for the unions by their members. Eventually, they would vote to de-authorize their union, which would effectively end the union’s ability to elect pro-education candidates, most of whom are, coincidentally, Democrats. Walker, then, is doing what’s best for his party.

The obvious question, of course, is “so what?” A better question is “why should teachers care?” An even better question is “what difference does this make for students?”

First of all, consider what happens at the local level. We bargained for many things when I was on my association’s bargaining committee, every one of which affected learning conditions for our students. A great example is the use of professional development days. We successfully convinced the district to designate one-third as individual choice, one-third as building-directed time, and one-third to be directed at the district level. This has led to far more meaningful work being done on those days, and far less time spent on district-directed “spray and pray” workshops.

Let’s look next at the state level. Last week I spent a whole day lobbying our state legislature on two issues: smaller class size and continuing the financial incentive for National Board Certification, both of which are proven to have a positive impact on student learning. Although I wasn’t paid for this time, our day was coordinated by several full-time union employees. Our union’s ability to bring real, classroom teachers into direct contact with lawmakers dealing with education legislation is the sort of activity that would completely end under a Walker-style law.

At the national level, the best way to compare pro-union vs. anti-union environments is to look at data. NAEP scores work best, since that’s basically what they were designed to do. And when you do, it becomes clear that collective bargaining states out-perform so-called “right-to-work states.” In the area of eighth grade reading, for example, ten of the top twelve states are collective bargaining states; nine of the bottom twelve have right-to-work laws. Other subjects and grade levels show the same trend, and while there may be many reasons for this, it’s not hard to imagine that having a strong, pro-education force like a powerful teacher union results in legislation that has a positive effect on student learning.

Yes, I finally get what’s going on in Wisconsin.  A Republican anti-union governor is doing what’s best for his party and their political agenda. It might be good for Republicans, but it’s bad for unions and bad for teachers. But ultimately, and most importantly, it’s bad for student learning.

Wisconsin is a big deal.

By Tom

I was reading a story this year with my third graders. It focused on Cesar Chavez, about whom they knew absolutely nothing. In order to build some context, I drew a stick figure on the board. “This guy is a farm owner,” I said. “And these people are the workers,” I continued, pointing to a large group nearby. “What would happen if one of these workers suddenly asked for a raise, or maybe a weekend?”

“The farm owner would give it to him, because that’s fair,” Margarito said.

“No he wouldn’t,” replied Lucas, “he would probably get fired, because the farm owner wouldn’t want to lose the money.”

“Lucas is right,” I said, erasing the outspoken stick figure, “He would definitely get fired.”

“But what would happen if all of the workers asked for more money or more time off together?” I asked, redrawing the greedy, lazy worker.

“They’d all get fired!”

“But then who would work the farm?” I said, “You see, if everyone asked for the same thing together, there’s a much better chance the owner would give it to them. The owner can’t do all the work himself. He won’t listen to just one worker; it’s easier to fire him. That’s why we have labor unions, so workers can ask for something important together, and not get fired because of it. And that’s what this story is about. Fifty years ago, Cesar Chavez helped farm workers ask for fair working conditions together.”

My students understood the story, while gaining an appreciation for the Organized Labor Movement.

As you might have guessed, I’m staunchly and unapologetically pro-union. For good reason.

Continue reading →

By Tom

I once watched an interview on 60 Minutes with Derek Jeter, one of my favorite baseball players. He was asked what he thought about when he stepped into the batters' box. "I know I'm going to get a base hit," he said. "I don't hope for it, I don't think I'll do it, and I don't know I can. I know I will." When it was pointed out that he only succeeded thirty percent of the time - a remarkable achievement – he said he didn't think about that. All he thought about was knowing that this time he was going to get a hit. And when it doesn't happen? "I'm always surprised."

That's how we need to think about our students. Every time we teach a lesson, we need to know that every child will learn what it is we're teaching. We can't hope they can, think they will or know they can. We need to know they will.

Obviously there's some disconnect going on. If a ballplayer has to know that he will get a hit every time he gets up, he also knows that he'll only succeed some of the time. Those two facts are mutually exclusive. There's bound to be some cognitive dissonance. So what happens to the baseball players that try to resolve this dissonance?

Simple: they enter the workforce with the rest of us and play slow-pitch softball in the evenings.

Continue reading →

By Tom

King 5 News aired a segment on the show "Up Front with Robert Mak" about the governor's proposal to eliminate the National Board stipend from the next budget. It's well done; he gets most of the facts right, and it features a very articulate third grade teacher from Bellevue.

Check it out:

“Rewarding good teachers in tough times could take a hit.”

I don't have much to add, except this:

This money was promised. It is not a "bonus" in the strict sense of the word. A bonus is a reward, usually given annually, for achieving a certain level of performance. A bonus is something companies usually distribute when they had a particularly good year.

This money is actually a stipend. A stipend is a raise given to somebody in recognition of a past accomplishment which has been determined to have a positive effect on current performance.

The distinction isn't trivial or technical. A bonus is something that an employee shouldn't count on. A stipend is. Taking away a bonus returns the person in question to their normal place on the salary scale. Taking away a stipend takes that person to a lower place on the salary scale.

It's a pay cut. And it discourages teachers from undergoing the most powerful professional development they're likely to come across during their entire careers. 

To her credit, the Governor looks very upset when discussing this issue. It's clear that this was a painful decision for her. She also holds out hope that the stipend will return when the economy picks up.

Sounds familiar.

By Tom

What are we supposed to wear to work? It seems like business people have it figured out, as do dentists and janitors. Baseball players have it figured out for them, just like inmates and cops. Teachers, though, are all over the place.

I was thinking about this the other day while reading this piece in the Tacoma News Tribune. It's about a teacher who earned National Board Certification, only to learn that the Governor's proposed budget did away with the National Board bonus. It was a good article about a sad situation, featuring a young lady who, by all accounts, is a wonderful teacher. 

But then I got down to the bottom of the page, where the comments began. Wow. Read them for yourself, if you have the stomach, but what really caught my attention was a series of remarks about the fact that the teacher was wearing jeans. I had to look back at the picture to confirm it, and sure enough; there she is, wearing blue denim.

Judging by the comments, jeans are not universally considered proper attire in the classroom. Apparently some people think jeans are unprofessional. And they can't get past that to see what the person wearing the jeans is actually doing in them.  

And that's unfortunate. Clothes shouldn't matter. Objectively speaking, anyone should be allowed to wear anything they want anywhere. Within reason. 

Continue reading →

By Tom

The Washington State legislature is currently dealing with a pair of bills designed to make it easier to fire bad teachers. The house version is apparently gaining traction. The senate version (SB 5399) is stalled, held up by Senator Rosemary McAuliffe, who chairs the leading education committee.

Good for you, Rosemary.

These bill are driven by the popular narrative that bad schools are caused by bad teachers, and bad teachers are nearly impossible to fire because of their powerful unions and because they have "tenure."

If that's true, then there should be data to support it, right? 

But there isn't.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average school district in 2007-2008 had 211.4 teachers. Of those 211.4 teachers, 4.4 of them were fired for poor performance. That's about two percent. I challenge you to find another profession with a higher termination rate.

But here's the weird thing: of those teachers who got fired, most of them were "protected by tenure." That's right; the average district fired 4.4 teachers. Three of them were tenured, and 1.4 of them weren't.

But isn't it impossible to fire tenured teachers? Apparently not. According to the standardized data, it seems easier than firing untenured teachers; 1.4 compared to 0.7. Twice as easy. And according to Perry Zirkel, professor of education and law at Lehigh University, when districts and teacher unions go to court to settle a termination issue, the districts win by a ratio of three to one. Not only is it possible to fire bad teachers who have tenure, but it happens quite often.

So on the one hand, we have the press and the president and Davis Guggenheim telling us that the problem with American education is bad teachers and their unwavering protection by the NEA and AFT.

And on the other hand, we have data that tells us differently. The data contradicts the popular narrative.

The irony, of course, is that so-called "education reformers" want more data used more often. They want the kids with bad data held back. They want the schools with bad data shut down. They want teachers of kids with good data paid more.

But more than anything, they want teachers of kids with bad data fired.

And they're frustrated by the fact that teachers and their unions disagree with them. So they perpetuate this myth that teachers are nearly impossible to fire.

Which simply isn't true.

And the last thing our state lawmakers should be doing right now is passing unnecessary legislation based on a myth. 

By Tom

There's an economic principle known as zero-sum. It's when two parties compete and one party's gains are exactly equal to the opponent's losses. Tug-of-war is a zero-sum game. So is a teeter-totter. Business works the same way. There's only so much market, say, for vacuum cleaners. If I sell vacuums to 30 households, the other salesman has effectively lost out on those thirty sales. My gains, minus his losses, equals zero. Thus, zero sum.

But while zero-sum theory might explain sports, business and everything else grounded in competition, it does little to describe what happens in schools.

Or what should happen.

Consider SB 5399, a ridiculous piece of legislation that the Washington State Senate is currently debating. It's an attempt to use future teacher layoffs as an opportunity to get rid of bad teachers, regardless of seniority.

The idea is to base layoffs on "evaluation scores." Never mind the fact that most districts, including mine, don't have numerical, four-tier evaluation systems in place, and won't be required to for another three years. And never mind the fact that even when they do, a four-tier scale uses ordinal variables, not interval variables. SB 5399 bases its layoff system on a scheme by which a teacher's evaluations are averaged and compared with that of other teachers. I'm no statistician, but I do know that you can't average ordinal integers.

But never mind all that. My real gripe with SB 5399 is that it will end up pitting teacher against teacher. It will turn teaching into a zero-sum game. Why would I have any interest in helping the new teacher down the hall when two years from now only one of us will have a job? Why would I want to collaborate with the very "colleagues" with whom I'm competing? If my gains are my teaching partner's losses, why would I want her to teach well? Why would I want her students to learn?

I wouldn't. I've got a kid in my house who'll be ready for college in four years. He has a younger brother who needs braces. Under SB 5399 I would have no reason to help anyone else become a better teacher; and every reason not to. I love teaching, and I think I'm pretty good at it, but I also need teaching. Frankly, I have no other skill-set. My family depends on my job. Pit me against my colleagues and I'll fight like hell to win. Which also means that I'll fight like hell to make sure my colleagues lose. Along with their students.

I'm all for getting rid of bad teachers. The fact that they make the rest of us look bad is immaterial compared to the crime they commit day in and day out in their ill-deserved classrooms.

But getting rid of bad teachers by making the rest of us compete with one another will ultimately do far more harm to more students than every bad teacher we'll ever have.

Teaching is not a business. It's not a game. It's a collaborative endeavor in which the whole school is far more valuable than the sum of all the classrooms. Good schools are places where teachers work effectively in their classrooms. Great schools are places where good teachers spend countless hours planning, analyzing and reflecting together, and where they work effectively throughout the whole school.

Good teachers have an impact on their own students. But great teachers have an impact on the whole school.

SB 5399 might get rid of the bad teachers.

But it will also get rid of the great teachers.

By Tom

As bad as things are in Washington – and they're bad – it could be worse. We could have this guy in our state legislature. Mark Christensen, a state senator in Nebraska, introduced a bill to allow schools workers to carry concealed weapons on the job.

Can you imagine?

In an apparent response to the recent shooting in Omaha, this guy actually wants to have teachers walking around with guns in their pockets.

But first they would need professional development.

"I don't think you can simply just hand out guns like you do keys," he said. There certainly would have to be a great amount of training, a great amount of responsibility. What's the standard of care for having a gun for an employee in the district?" he asked.

"You have to be trained to get a concealed carry permit," explained Christensen. "You take a class, you go through the shooting, the training and learn about the responsibility of the gun. So that's why it's another great thing, it is a trained individual."

Another great thing?

He continues:

"I've never seen a gun escalate a situation. Guns don't kill people, people do."

So the next time you're sitting through a literacy workshop, learning about the intricacies of consonant digraphs, just think: you could be taking target practice, getting ready to de-escalate a situation.

Frankly, I can't imagine a gun not escalating a situation.

This guy clearly has no idea what we do, who we are and why we teach. Every teacher I know or have ever known, the good and the bad, the young or old, every teacher – every single teacher –  would quit immediately if they were asked to take a gun to work.

And thank God.