By Kristin

Scores scores scores.  They're everywhere.  I agree with testing.  I agree with using test scores to evaluate teachers.  I agree with getting rid of ineffective teachers.  But many of the tests currently used are shoddy assessments.  As Brian's most recent post demonstrates, we are not yet to the place where test scores should mean as much as they do.  In this panic-driven "race to the top" (and it's not to the top – districts are racing to prove they test) districts are whipping out tests that haven't been, well, tested.  

Continue reading →

by Brian

I teach math, but it's football season, so here's an analogy from the gridiron.  It's just the start of the second quarter, and we're getting our butts kicked.  And it looks like the refs want us to lose; we just can't get a call!

By second quarter I am referring to the fact that the class of 2014 has entered our high schools and joined the class of 2013 as the first students who will have to pass End of Course exams in Algebra and Geometry in order to graduate.  And by getting our butts kicked I mean that we are behind 42% to 58% ( that's students who passed the HSPE last year vs. those who didn't.)  And by the refs I mean the State Legislature, The State Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who have collectively not yet even figured out what the End of Course exams are going to look like. 

Today we got a look at Item Specifications that showed which standards would be included in the EOC exams.  A quick check against the Algebra 1 Crosswalk, which also claims to show which standards will be tested, showed some glaring inconsistencies.  Will quadratic factoring be on the test or not?  It matters.

I also teach Algebra 2, and recently signed up to have my classes pilot test questions for the EOCs in Algebra and Geometry.  Sometime in October we will take a class period to answer potential items for the EOCs which will be given next spring (within 3 weeks of the end of school). Obviously, the tests have not even been created yet, or field tested, or validated, yet they will be used to determine whether or not our students will be able to graduate.

Wait, it gets more crazy.  You see, students who passed Algebra last year are in Geometry this year, so they will take the Geometry EOC exam.  But the state law says they have to pass an EOC exam in Algebra too, and there was no EOC exam available for Algebra last year when they took the course.  So they have to take something called Comprehensive, Part 1.  No wait, that was last week. (I'm not making this up!)  This week it's the EOC Retake.  The sophomores in Algebra 2 this year (they're the reason we keep leading the nation in SAT scores), well they have to take Comprehensive Parts 1 and 2, or maybe it's the EOC retakes for Algebra and Geometry.  That's not clear either.

Last February I went to Olympia to testify before the Senate Education in support of a bill postponing the requirement that the class of 2013 and beyond pass EOC exams that had not even been written.  They listened politely, kind of, but the bill died in committee.  I plan to go back when the legislature convenes next year and try again.

You see, it's kind of embarrassing to teach a subject based on logic and reason to students who are being treated so badly by adults acting irrationally.

By Mark

The new buzzphrase in my neck of the woods is "Response to Intervention." I know it's been around a while, and I know that RTI can take many forms, but a few recent uncomfortable conversations in the lunchroom have let me to wonder: at what cost do we respond to students who struggle?

My building, like many, has crafted means to "intervene" when it is discovered that students are struggling academically in core graduation requirements.  

First off, I am part of a teaching team in an intervention program for 9th graders. The goal is to help students transition into high school by learning study skills, organization and time management–in other words, how to be a student–all the while providing mainstream coursework in order to keep the bar high and keep opportunities open for the students' futures. However, participating in this program means that the students lose one of their half-year electives in order to participate in the program's support period. This means fewer students in art, technology, and P.E. electives. And this obviously impacts those programs and their staff.

Further, our math department has worked hard to craft during-the-school day as well as after-school opportunities for students who struggle in math to achieve greater success since, though our building scores are above the state average, math scores have not had the kind of growth or progress the teachers would like to see. The most aggressive and focused of these interventions is that certain struggling (mainstream) students are given a second mathematics class during their day's schedule. This intervention provides greater one-on-one or small-group support in core math skills necessary for achieving what is required by the state in mathematics. This means that the student now takes an extra math class instead of another elective. This means fewer students in art, technology, and P.E. electives. And this obviously impacts those programs and their staff.

Too often when I'd hear about how the testing movement saps the life out of the arts, music, and P.E. (among other subjects), I would assume that this was in the context of an elementary situation where a teacher with finite but flexible time was being pushed to devote more to the tested disciplines. Now I see that the same is starting to happen at the secondary level as well.

Those uncomfortable conversations I mentioned above have been with elective teachers who shared with me the impact that interventions are having on their courses and enrollment. If nothing else, we're talking FTE and job security here, so certainly people have the right to be impassioned. Besides that, there is the common belief that many kids who struggle in core courses thrive in the arts, technology, and vocational courses…and that the latter are what make them even want to come to school. Overriding all this is the tacit (or not so tacit) message that the only things that matter are the things the state tests us on.

It is easy to blame the Big Test movement and related requirements for these decisions that short-change electives. However, it should force us to re-examine exactly what is the purpose of a comprehensive high school. Is it to ready students for the Big Tests in reading, writing, math, and science? Must something be tested in order to have value? Should the arts be an option only after the Big Tests have been passed? Should the Test trump all?

When kids struggle, what price are we willing to make them pay to get them to pass that Test?

By Tom

First the good news: Students in Washington State scored the highest in the nation last year on their SATs. While scores across the nation stayed flat, our students improved. We might have a crappy baseball team, but on something that actually matters, we're number one.

Now the bad news. The Seattle Times, which by default is the most widely read paper in the state, gives absolutely no credit for this impressive feat to the teachers. None whatsoever. Here, read it for yourself. 

This after blaming teachers for everything that's bad about public education. Blaming them for the poor performance of students on state tests, Blaming them for obstruction to school reform. Blaming them for the need for school reform. You name it, teachers have been blamed for it.

Don't get me wrong; like The Times, I credit the students who actually took the SATs. They sat there with their pencils and answered the questions correctly. Good for them. And good for their parents for supporting them.

But for crying out loud, I want at least a little of that credit. Just a bit. Those kids learned how to write paragraphs from me. I taught them their multiplication tables. I taught them how to divide. How to subtract three-digit numbers with borrowing. I taught them how to listen, how to share glue. I taught them the water cycle. I taught them how to read.

So good for you, students. I'm glad you did well and I'm glad that you'll get into a good college. And I'm sure you know a third grade teacher or a middle school teacher or a high school teacher who helped you along the way.

It's just too bad that you're stuck reading a newspaper that doesn't know how to change its narrative in the face of data that doesn't support that narrative.

By Kristin

Have you seen the education issue of Time magazine?  Be ready.  In an earnest but hackneyed effort, Time and its reporters Amanda Ripley and John Cloud throw a lot of numbers around ("16:1 Student-to-teacher ratio in 2007, compared with 22:1 in 1970."  Really?  Where is that 16-student average coming from?), highlight the temporary contributions of the Teach For America corps, and dabble a bit in some of the better-performing charter schools.  And of course, they vilify unions and discount the contributions of excellent public school teachers because they are union members. 

Let's take moment to follow the scent Cloud and Ripley wave across the trail, and then we'll look at some real solutions to help public schools serve challenged and challenging kids.

Continue reading →

By Kristin

My journalism students are writing their first opinion pieces.  One student chose to write about the poor teachers in our building.  She complained that her senior project class was chaos, a waste of time. 

"The teacher can't handle us," she said. 

"You are seniors," I said. "Are you unable to behave for fifty minutes and work on your projects?" 

"Well," she answered, "we're rowdy and when she tells us to get to work no one listens to her."

I am not even going to go into the skills of this particular teacher.  I think in the context of this situation it's a moot point.  Am I really to sympathize that twenty-five seniors - eighteen year olds, most of them – can't use a fifty-minute research period to complete a graduation requirement?  I find it hard to fault the teacher.  The teacher of this class is there to guide, edit, and encourage.  She should not have to manage the behavior of a group of young adults who fully expect to graduate.

Or am I out of line? 

Continue reading →

By Tom

The Los Angeles Times created a recent stir by publishing the standardized test results of some of their local teachers. The premise, of course, is obvious: teachers aren’t currently working as hard as possible or doing as much as they could to promote student learning. And they won’t improve unless motivated by shame. I couldn’t agree more.

And since I want to do everything I can to improve, I’ve got a plan.

I’ll start by publishing my class results online. Everyone will know exactly how many kids learned in my class and how many kids didn’t.

Then I’ll take it up a notch. In the interest of accountability and transparency, I’ll disaggregate the scores so that the world will know exactly which students I didn’t teach successfully. They’ll notice that some students did well despite my lack of effort and that some did poorly because of it.

Then I’ll upload my gradebook and attendance records. Everyone will see that the same students who did poorly on their state tests also did poorly on their classroom work. The astute readers will note that I even allowed some students to skip some of their school work. Not even turn it in. And they’ll be horrified to see that I didn’t even have everyone come to school every day. In fact, I actually had many of the lowest-performing students miss the most learning time. That should definitely make me improve.

But I’m not taking any chances. I’ll install web cams in my room so that everyone who holds a stake in the success of my students can watch my ineptitude. Newspaper editors can log in and watch me teach poorly. Members of the Business Roundtable can watch me fail to give my students the skills they need. Parents can watch their own children endure my weak lessons. Everyone will watch as my lowest-performing students engage in off-task behavior whenever possible and work hard only when under my direct supervision.

Yes, the new Tom will be totally accountable, totally transparent, and much, much better.

Continue reading →

By Tom

I found out yesterday that Washington State didn't just lose the Race to the Top, we got creamed. Smeared. Hammered. We came in 32nd out of 36. It was like watching another Mariners season. It was humiliating.

Of course, having the Seattle Times editorial page rubbing it in didn't help matters.

They were right, of course. We didn't get any of the grant money because our reform package wasn't bold enough and it didn't have sufficient buy-in from all the stakeholders. Specifically, the teachers and their union.

I have to admit, I was a little upset, finding out that we did so poorly. I actually liked the package that our legislature put together, especially the proposed changes to the teacher evaluation system, and the fact that we'll continue to support National Board certification instead of pouring money into a merit-pay program. And I'm not convinced in the least that adding charter schools is any kind of a sustainable solution to the problems in education.

Disappointed and frustrated, I took it out on a long bike ride. Which seemed to help, because by the time I got home, I figured out what's really going on here.

It was never about the money. Not really. What the Obama administration was trying to do was shake things up. They had a nice chunk of cash to throw at education. And they had a choice; they could dole it out in the usual way, based on need, and expect the usual results. Or they could do things differently. They could dole it out to states based on the degree of innovation in their proposed changes, and the degree to which the stakeholders in those states bought into those changes. Which is what they did. 

And that actually makes a lot of sense, because now we all get to sit back and see what works and what doesn't. We may find out that merit pay is the best thing to happen to education since the Dry-Erase Revolution. Or we might find out that it's a complicated waste of money. We might find out that charter schools really do help their students learn and that they really do inform their surrounding public schools on best practices. Or not.

And if we find this stuff out, then we can use that information to improve education everywhere else. If we're smart, that is.

So taking the long view, this whole thing looks like one big educational experiment. Unfortunately, Washington, along with most of the other states, was unwillingly placed into the control group. We didn't get any of the much-needed money to pay for our innovations. But like this year's Mariners season, that's the way it goes.

Hopefully we'll all learn from this. And hopefully we'll use what we learn to improve education for all students.

Because that's what really matters.