By Travis
The message is clear. Very clear.
On the surface, the message comes across as positive, saying there is an organization out there to help children. I am all for helping children.
However, there is hidden message. An agenda, perhaps? This subtle meaning sends its message to the community even if the community does not consciously read it that way.
By Rob
Tom has written some thoughtful posts (here, here, and here) about charter schools. When I read about charter schools with a cohesive staff, a common vision, and high standards for all I’m excited about the possibilities for their use in education reform. I am also a firm believer that the same reforms are possible for public schools.
If charter schools take hold then resources will shift towards making them viable. Who provides the transportation? Who maintains the facilities? Who provides the special education services in the least restrictive environment? Who provides the oversight? Undoubtedly answers to these questions are possible. But what if the resources used to address these questions were invested in local school improvement?
By Mark
I sat at a table with two other teachers, two building administrators, and the top two admin from the district office. We'd spent the better part of an hour sorting through the assessment rubrics and frameworks associated with the new teacher evaluation system mandated through legislative action in Senate Bill 6696.
Silence settled on us all at once. The weight of what we were examining suddenly became overwhelming.
Like so many things in education, the ideas and philosophies behind this new evaluation system (in brief: a shift from the binary satisfactory/unsatisfactory on a menu of teacher behaviors to a four-point continuum of evaluation using as many as sixty individual descriptors of teacher practice) we could all agree were sound, necessary, and powerful both in terms of evaluation and potential professional development.
But as we began to picture how it all could transition from philosophy to action, the beast began to be revealed.
By Rob
Me: Teacher- youngish, energetic, and looking for new perspectives. You: an inspiration- must be willing to share ideas and be a good listener. Let’s build a relationship based on good intentions, trust, and a common vision.
Earlier this month Diane Ravitch spoke on school reform at Town Hall Seattle. Her message to a friendly audience was a critique of the “corporate reform movement.” It was a mix of motivating rhetoric, valid points, and verbal grenades. Her positions concerning Race to the Top, NCLB, merit pay, the use of student assessment data to evaluate teachers match my own. I appreciate she is speaking on my behalf.
A week before Ravitch’s visit to Seattle Michelle Rhee spoke at Boston Symphony Hall. I can only assume her speech was equal to Ravitch’s in passion but opposite in perspective. I expect someone in the audience found her perspectives matched their own and they are thankful she is speaking on his or her behalf.
By Mark
For me, mentally, the coming December holiday break marks the "half-way" point in the school year. While this is not necessarily chronologically true, it is certainly emotionally true.
Back when I was a pre-service teacher, I remember seeing a chart like this one that graphs a first-year teacher's motivation and emotion over the calendar year–with November and December being the pit of disillusionment–but don't despair, rejuvenation and hope are just around the corner!
Ten years later, I feel like the chart still applies to me. It is always in November and December that I wander the web to see what other kinds of jobs my credentials and dispositions might match.
As our way to recognize and celebrate the National Board score release this weekend, our NBCT/Bloggers shared a bit about what being a National Board Certified Teacher has meant for them, and for our state. The process of becoming National Board Certified involves hundreds of planning hours and demonstrating best practices in teaching. Those who recently certified had an additional stress of a delay in score results due to a computer server glitch.
With the glitch solved, and over a thousand new NBCTs to join them in Washington state, we offer our congratulations and invite you to read on and be inspired by what our bloggers have said about how being National Board Certified is making a difference for teachers in our state.
By Mark
Senate Bill 6696 has put into motion changes in the way teachers are evaluated.
First… the relevant language of the bill (from the link above):
Evaluations. Each school district must establish performance criteria and an evaluation process for all staff and establish a four-level rating system for evaluating classroom teachers and principals with revised evaluation criteria. Minimum criteria is specified. The new rating system must describe performance on a continuum that indicates the extent the criteria have been met or exceeded. When student growth data (showing a change in student achievement between two points in time) is available for principals and available and relevant to the teacher and subject matter it must be based on multiple measures if referenced in the evaluation.
Classroom Teachers. The revised evaluation criteria must include: centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement; demonstrating effective teaching practices; recognizing individual student learning needs, and developing strategies to address those needs; providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum; fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment; using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning; communicating and collaborating with parents and the school community; and exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning. The locally bargained short-form may also be used for certificated support staff or for teachers who have received one of the top two ratings for four years. The short-form evaluations must be specifically linked to one or more of the evaluation criteria.
Here in southwest Washington, ESD 112 is leading a group of districts who are beginning the process of adapting and implementing the evaluation procedures described in this bill. Of course, the first step is a careful reading of relevant parts of SB 6696.
There are two elements of the language above that I like in particular. To begin, there's this:
By Travis
Not too long ago, Governor Gregoire’s educational budget cuts came out, and I have had some time to think about it.
Washington, you can continue to be a pillar of education strength.
Washington, you worked so hard to not have California-sized classrooms.
Washington, your students have already given up a lot.
Washington … you need to figure out your budget.
Please do not trash the future of our children's education.
By Rob
In a comment on my recent blog post Tom asks: "How can we rewrite the federal education bill so that it actually helps student learn?" This is a huge question. The difficult issues of funding, evaluation, accountability, standards, and testing must be addressed in a politically feasible manner. I don’t know what is feasible but I'd advocate for these ideas-
Standards: I support national standards. As a population we are more mobile than ever and there should not be a drastic difference in the curricular content among states. This requires a level of monitoring and evaluation of states and educational systems. Currently this evaluation and monitoring is done by comparing the separate standardized tests in each state. Although these tests are given to every student multiple times throughout their schooling it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions since these tests vary in rigor and content. Our testing system needs reform.
Testing: Evaluation and monitoring of education systems is necessary for oversight and informed policy decisions. However this does not require the current two week assessment window, every child tested, a huge financial cost, lost instructional time, and enormous pressure on educators and students. Instead this should be done with a smaller randomized sample of students and less impact and intrusion on instruction.
Summative tests, currently the HSPE and MSP (sort of), are assessments of learning given at the end of a particular educational stage. Passing these tests is necessary for students to receive credits or in some cases progress to the next grade. Presently these are a part of a broken testing system. With rare exception, the students who come into the tenth grade performing far below grade level are the ones who are not going to pass the High School Proficiency Exam.
This idea isn’t new but I support summative tests at grade 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12. Students should not exit that grade until they are proficient. How can a fifth grade teacher instruct a student on comparing and contrasting an author’s inferred message when the student is struggling to sound out every third word? How can an eighth grade math teacher approach the Pythagorean Theorem with a student who struggles to multiply?
I’ve heard teachers say (myself included) I could teach 35 students if they came to me proficient in the previous year’s content. Let’s go with this idea-
It begins with half day Pre-K for all students and full day kindergarten. Before they leave kindergarten they need to know their letter sounds, numbers, reading behaviors, and should be able to read and discuss the events in a predictable text. Those who are proficient enter a first grade class capped at 24 students (35 is too many first graders for any teacher no matter how academically proficient the kids are). Those who are approaching proficiency enter a first grade class capped at 16. Those far below proficiency enroll in a class capped at 12.
Schools would use their ongoing formative assessment in grades 1,2,4,6,7,9, and 11 to reconfigure classes and to carry the model forward. The student who enters second approaching standard but exits meeting standard would enroll in the third grade class with the highest student-teacher ratio.
This model has imbedded funding implications. The schools with the highest performing students would have higher class sizes and would be cheaper to staff as long as they continued to maintain high student performance. The schools with lower performing students, ostensibly with underserved populations, would have a lower teacher-pupil ratio and would receive more funding.
This model is not without its challenges. Schools would need to take great care not to track students by providing some students with continual remediation while others engage in higher order thinking. I believe smaller numbers of students is important when serving struggling students in reading and math it is also important for students not to be ability grouped for other content areas.
Can somebody tell me why this wouldn't be an improvement? Maybe this idea isn’t ready to be written into law but couldn’t congress earmark some funding so some districts could try it?
By Rob
My school is in the third round of No Child Left Behind sanctions. Among other procedures these sanctions call for ‘corrective action’ to be taken.
Arriving at this point wasn’t a surprise. It’s taken many years to get here. Our school has been labeled ‘failing’ for a while but only after seeing last year’s test results do I feel like we’ve failed. No teacher at our school wanted to enter the third round of NCLB sanctions. Round 2, Schools of Choice, was embarrassing enough.
There was pressure to improve our school’s test results. I sensed a change in the tone of my evaluations. Many new teachers were not hired for year two. A veteran teacher was removed. It seemed to me that the pressure was high and morale was low.
Perhaps other teachers felt this pressure more acutely than I. Last year many of them have transferred elsewhere. Of 23 classroom teachers 11 are novice (in their first or second year). In my tenth year teaching I’m the second most experienced teacher at our school.
I’ve wondered how we’ve arrived at this unfortunate point. Each fall we receive our state’s standardized test scores. Teachers, energized and committed, face the challenge. We’ve created systems for tracking student progress, providing extra support, engaging families, growing professionally, and improving instruction. I believe some of these systems have been of great benefit to students.
While I thought these systems were beneficial our data never really showed it. Here’s what it shows: (click the picture for a clearer view)
In 2011 our scores dropped 30% to under 40% of students passing the 4th grade reading MSP. The year before 71.4% of students passed the 3rd grade reading MSP. The test didn’t get harder. The state average pass rate remained flat. This isn’t isolated to one grade. Our 3rd grade reading pass rate fell 13.1% from the previous year. Our 5th grade reading pass rate fell 32.8% from the previous year.
This drop in performance is startling. So what happened? Who knows? I wish I had more answers and fewer questions.
Did the students consistently miss a particular type of reading comprehension question? That could be addressed with an adjustment to the curriculum.
With a 37% mobility rate could the students who left be the ones who passed in 2010. Might they have been replaced with students who didn't pass? How about the families who left because of school choice (a NCLB sanction for schools in step 2 of improvement)? Did the student population change significantly? Are we comparing the same students from year to year?
Did students who narrowly passed the MSP in 2010 narrowly miss passing in 2011? Did a slight drop in performance signify a drastic drop in the percent of students meeting standard?
Did significant numbers of non passing students come from specific classrooms?
Could school community, teacher morale, and the shame & blame policies of NCLB account, at least in part, for a dramatic drop in student performance?
Answers to these questions are important as a school undergoes “corrective action.” I don’t know if anybody is asking these questions. I don’t know if answers are available. But I’d like to know exactly what problem I’m correcting and we all deserve a clearer answer than ‘you didn’t meet adequate yearly progress again.’