When I was growing up my father was the city manager of
Mountlake Terrace. He was – and is – a cheap man, so when it came time to
purchase some additional police cars, he decided to buy a fleet of four used
checker cabs from a New York City taxi company. Expecting brand-new, top-shelf
Crown-Vics, the police force was not amused. In fact, they made an astonishing
prediction: within months, these cars – which they decided were dangerously
top-heavy – would all overturn. And sure enough, they all did. Oddly, no
civilian witnessed any of these “accidents,” all of which happened late at
night. Fortunately no one was injured.
In the end it was a win-win. The cops got their Crown-Vics
and my father got a great story to tell at his annual city manager conferences.
And at every Thanksgiving for the past forty years. The citizens of Mountlake
Terrace, of course, didn’t win; they had to pay for eight cars instead of four,
but such is life.
I share this story in light of what’s happening concerning
education funding. As we all know, the past few years have been bleak. Class
sizes have gone up and para-educator support levels have dropped. Teacher
salaries have also taken a 3% hit; absorbed and mitigated by many districts with
furlough days, resulting in less instruction time.
Like the cops in my father’s city, teachers predicted that
student learning would pay a price. However, this is what actually happened:
What you’re looking at is math achievement in Washington
State over the last three years. Reading and science scores have also gone up.
This is not what we predicted or feared. This is definitely not a fleet of
police cars rolling around, upside-down in the streets of Mountlake Terrace.
So what happened?
Let me offer three possible explanations, presented in order
of increasing likelihood:
The simplest explanation is that neither class size nor para
support really matter when it comes to student achievement. Students will do
fine no matter how many of them are in the classroom and no matter how many
adults are available to help them. The only thing that matters is teacher
effectiveness, which in Washington is apparently on the increase.
This explanation, while simple, flies in the face of every
teacher’s experience. Yes, I can handle another kid. And perhaps another one next
week. But I simply can’t give 28 fourth graders the same amount of attention –
the same amount of teaching – that I can give to 24 fourth graders. It’s simple
arithmetic. Division, to be specific.
The next possible explanation is that our state’s teachers
simply rose to the occasion. We saw this as a challenge – do better with fewer
resources – and met that challenge with everything we had. We complained more
than we’ve ever complained, yet worked harder than we’ve ever worked and the
results speak for themselves. We are truly remarkable.
Obviously, I love this explanation, since it allows me to
become one of the remarkables. You like it too, for the same reason. It’s a
Disney movie waiting to happen, starring Christopher Walken
as me. Unfortunately, I have my doubts. So do you. We both know that we’re not
that good. Sure we’ve improved over the last three years, but come on, not that
much.
Which leads me to the third explanation. That one that’s
probably right. What’s happened isn’t that our teaching has gotten better, it’s just gotten more focused. Focused, that is, on the stuff
that gets tested. Stuff like math and reading. And science, if you teach fifth
grade. Focus, of course, comes with a price. If you focus on one thing (or in
our case, two or three things) you ignore other things. Things like art. Social
Studies. Character Education. Science, if you don’t teach fifth grade.
This is exactly what I’m seeing in my school. Classes, including
mine, are going on less field trips. There are far fewer long-term, integrated
projects. Far, far fewer. The artwork hanging in the hallways stays up for
months instead of weeks. Consider this: our school has a kiln, which up until a
few years ago was a highly-sought commodity. There were actual staff-room
arguments over kiln time. No more. That thing has sat there, cold and empty,
for the last four years. Why? Well who in their right mind wants to spend the
time and energy on an expensive ceramic project with an over-loaded classroom
and no para time, especially with a high stakes test breathing down your neck?
No one, that’s who. So there it sits.
So yeah, we’re doing more with less. Good for us. But at
what cost? Have we allowed our focus on student achievement in math and reading
to eclipse everything else that makes school worth doing? I think maybe we
have. Are we in danger of compromising the hearts and souls of our schools for
the sake of results? I think maybe we are.
So now our economy is starting to get back on its feet.
We’re starting to see money begin to trickle back into our schools. I have a
feeling that it’s not going back to the same places it came from.
In fact, just this week my own district found an unexpected
few million dollars. They’re trying to decide what to do with it. Teachers, of
course, would like to see it go toward lowering class sizes and increasing para
support. Toward that end, it would be helpful to have some good data that shows how student
achievement fell off the cliff when class sizes started to go up. Fortunately,
however, we don’t. Which is one reason why that money is probably not going
toward lower class sizes and increased para support.
In fact, at the last school board meeting the principals
presented a proposal calling for more support in the implementation of the new
teacher evaluation system. Now, there’s no question that principals are already
overworked and about to become even more overworked. And you could probably
draw a connection between increased principal support and student learning, which I'm sure is exacty what the principals did at the board meeting. So from what I hear, the school board has looked
favorably upon the principals’ proposal, and ultimately, that’s probably where
the money will end up.
But I’m not sure that’s where our resources are most needed.
Like I said, the money’s not going back to where it came
from. And that's too bad. It almost makes you wish we’d rolled a few police cars.
Almost.
Along a parallel, or at least similar, line as what Kristin points out, I was in a conversation yesterday with a frustrated teacher who was lamenting the disappearance of science and history in favor of reading, writing, and math at the elementary level.
My question: can’t teaching science and history also be teaching reading and writing? I’m not an elementary school teacher, so I don’t mean to step on toes, but it seems that the compartmentalization of skills is something that could be remedied at ALL levels. When I look at the common core standards for reading and literacy, these can absolutely be accomplished by reading about history or science subjects. I know that many teachers do this very thing, when given the freedom to.
I am a high school English teacher and have long advocated for reducing the number of “English” graduation requirements, with my idea being that reading and writing instruction should be embedded in the other content areas–that is where the authentic literacy skills are really needed anyway. I think part of the reason we feel like “we don’t have time for XXX” is because in some schools the “subjects” have become utterly disconnected and departmentalized/compartmentalized. I guess my point: why must reading time, math time, and science time be separate? No disrespect intended.
When I taught high school, and we sat down with the ninth graders to check in boxes of classes they’d passed toward graduation requirements and then helped them pick their classes for the next year – with an eye toward filling out those requirements – I was always troubled by one thing, and that was how huge a percentage of their credits required for graduation went to electives.
I can’t quickly find the actual numbers – and it’s early and I need to get ready for work – but it was something like three credits of science were required and 16 credits of electives were required. Three of those elective credits could be a language, which is important, but a tremendous chunk of a child’s high school career is spent as a TA, in art, in auto shop, in debate, in journalism, in PE, in music and as a TA again because that’s fun.
All of those things are valuable. They are really important, especially if we’re talking about a child who doesn’t have access to any of that at home. But I couldn’t help looking at my students who were functionally illiterate and couldn’t tell you what 15 divided by 5 was, and wondering if they really needed to spend so many hours in PE and Art. And if you try to have this conversation at the high school level, the PE and Art and Tech teachers are very hurt and offended that you would suggest reducing the number of hours a child had to sign up for their class.
The University of Washington never decided between two candidates based on the number of credits they’d accumulated in PE. At this point I should point out I’m FOR CTE classes – but I think that’s a separate graduation track.
So I don’t know how I feel about your conclusion. I have to say, as someone who has seen what happens to a child who can’t read by fifth grade, that I’m glad we’re focusing on the basics. I don’t fully support the kinds of assessments we use, or that we’re under so much pressure to teach to them instead of having the freedom to be more creative with math and reading instruction, but I’m glad children have the opportunity to get better at the basics.
And maybe, as we continue to get efficient at getting kids to be proficient at the basics, we can carve our a little time to make some bubble-gum holders with that kiln.
Our teacher evaluation is a great system, a much needed one that encompasses a lot of professional development. The whole thing is huge, however, in terms of time and resources required–sometimes seeming a bit top-heavy just like those Checker Cabs!
I agree, Mark. We simply need more money. And not just for schools, as Maren’s post explains.
While I do think the use of money for teacher evaluation is a valid investment, your point is well taken. That is not what money was taken from… those resources that were plundered are not being replenished. I don’t know what the solution is.
Well, actually, I do, but it is not something that the legislature would be willing to try.