by Brian
In the comments to my recent post I suggested that charter schools might be part of the solution to the perceived shortcomings of our educational system. There were some good, challenging questions to that position.
I am not a champion for charter schools, but I have found one, and he is persuasive, at least to me. Not to say I'm persuaded, but he made me think more deeply about their potential.
I really don't have much to complain about. I teach in an affluent, privileged school district. So affluent, in fact, that a good chunk (if not the majority) of teachers cannot even afford to purchase a home in the district. I live relatively close, and my drive is 45 miles round trip.
But the community is a great one–it consistently supports bonds and levies, has that "small town" feel while still being close to the big city, and because the median education in the district is high, we inherit children whose home lives include a valuing of at least academic performance (good grades) if not a good education. I have to work less hard to get my kids to learn than I did when I taught at a semi-urban district in Puget Sound or than when I did when I was at a rural high school in Oregon where it was easier just to give all the kids free meals rather than sort out the 2% who didn't qualify for free lunch. We certainly have our challenges in my current district, and we do see an achievement gap based on socioeconomic status, but all in all, kids are doing well by the grand measures that everyone seems to care about.
As a result of our community and their valuing of education, all of our HSPE scores are well above the state average, and are the highest of any traditional comprehensive public high school in our region. Last year, our pass rates on the reading and writing HSPEs were knocking on the door of 100%.
Public education is the square peg in the round hole.
America is the land of opportunity: if you work hard, you will earn success. Anything is possible. The Dream, despite all the commentary over the years in which it is exposed as utter fallacy, is still the premise on which America operates.
Our economy requires competition in order to function. We compete for jobs; companies compete for our money. This is all great if you only pay attention to the one who gets the job or the company who cashes in. When I teach Orwell's Animal Farm, I do a quick (way too quick) primer about communism, socialism and capitalism, so that students will have a better sense of the political and economic context in which the allegory is set. Of course, the students realize that capitalism is the most palatable to them, but every year they are shocked when I twist the discussion this way: because I have this job, someone else does not have this job. Because I spend my money one place, someplace else doesn't get money. They start to realize that inherent in capitalism is the competition which naturally segregates the haves and have-nots.
To me, this is the essence of why everyone hates teachers right now.
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.
by Brian
It's almost March and time for the Madness to begin, No, Tom, I'm not talking about the NCAA basketball tournaments, I'm talking about the Washington State SPRING 2011 HSPE/WAAS/EOC/MSP TESTING WINDOWS. It starts in March with the HSPEs in Writing and Reading for grades 10-12. In April it's the Science HSPE, since the promised EOC isn't ready this year. Then in May it's the tykes' turn as the MSPs take over for grades 3-8. In June math gets its turn as the high-schoolers get their first crack at the Algebra 1/Integrated Math 1 EOC and the Geometry/Integrated Math 2 EOC. Those "Must be administered within three weeks before end of course". (BTW, if you give a 14 year-old student an End Of Course Exam 3 weeks before the end of the school year, how are you going to keep him in his seat for the last 12 days?) Oh, and for students who have previously taken those courses: they can take the EOC Makeup Exams. That's a lot of tests. You should watch this if you are confused. (Even if you're not, it's fun.)
By Tracey
As I’m sure you’ve heard, Wisconsin Governor Walker succeeded in his aim to remove collective bargaining rights to teachers and other public employees. And, following right behind, Providence, Rhode Island issued pink slips to all of their 1,926 teachers. Sure, most will likely get hired back. But what this move effectively does is remove collective bargaining for these teachers. If you watch the heart-wrenching video of the board meeting, the teachers were begging to be laid-off rather than terminated. A termination for everyone means that the district can hire whomever they want back, regardless of seniority. It’s difficult to sit back and watch these two demoralizing attacks on teachers and teachers’ unions.
In both of these stories, the governor of Wisconsin and the mayor of Providence claimed these were necessary moves because of severe budget shortfalls. While it’s true they’re experiencing a budget crisis; it’s false to presume these actions will aid in alleviating the budget. We know that Walker offered tax cuts to businesses and is further diminishing state revenue by eradicating collective bargaining for public employees.
Unfortunately, people seem to be buying the argument and agree that everyone “needs to sacrifice.” I wonder if these drastic moves are being blamed on budget issues because if Gov. Walker and Mayor Angeles Taveras came right out and said, “We want to dismantle labor unions and end collective bargaining for working Americans,” they know they wouldn’t get elected. A recent poll shows that Americans are still in support of collective bargaining. This brings me some hope. However, there’s no question teachers’ unions are under attack. And the fervor behind this comes from the mistaken notion that teachers’ unions are all about protecting bad teachers.
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.
InterACT, a group blog by educators in California, recently shared a post by guest-writer Lynne Formigli, an NBCT and active teacher leader. Formigli summarizes the situation which resulted after three billion dollars (over eight years) had to be funneled directly to nearly 500 struggling schools as a result of a lawsuit against then-governor Schwarzenegger. (Read Lynne's post for more articulate and thorough explanation.)
The use of that money (now a few years into the eight year plan), as implied by Formigli, was apparently teacher or at least locally directed, and the results were powerful. These results included evidence to support what teachers often promote: class size matters significantly to the learners who are statistically "left behind."
This information ought to resonate all throughout the country as states face the tough budget decisions about public education. Decision makers need to hear this:
I really encourage you to take a look at InterACT and read Lynne's post and other posts by the teacher-leaders there.
by Brian
I am opposed to high stakes tests as a graduation requirement. The current law in our state requires students to pass 5 of them, beginning this year. I am certain that at least 50% of the students who take those tests this spring will not pass at least one of them. People in favor of high stakes tests often refer to the New York Regents exams, pointing out that those tests have been in place for a long time and that students there are managing to pass them. I admit I have been curious about that argument. How do they get their students to pass, when it is so difficult here? Well, apparently they cheat.