by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

There are few lightning rods in the educational landscape of 2011 that rival the debate on the role of testing in the evaluation of student, teacher and school performance.  However, another perspective on this topic was addressed in a recent Mel Riddile post which discussed research indicating that frequent testing had a positive impact on learning.

According to Dr. Riddile, “A recent study summarized in Science magazine and reported in a New York Times article titled To Really Learn, Quit Studying and Take a Test may be a key to unlocking some keys to the teaching and learning process.”  This discussion does not concern the end-of-course barrier exams that are the focal point of most educational conversations.  The research revolves around the use of testing within a teacher’s daily lesson planning.  The study found “practicing retrieval produces greater gains in meaningful learning than elaborate studying.”  As Dr. Riddile notes, “In other words, the simple act of taking a test may improve learning better than any other studying technique including note taking and concept mapping.”

Perhaps the most compelling conclusion noted revolved around the retention of information.  “The Times article went on to say, The research, published online Thursday in the journal Science, found that students who read a passage, then took a test asking them to recall what they had read, retained about 50 percent more of the information a week later than students who used two other methods. One of those methods — repeatedly studying the material — is familiar to legions of students who cram before exams. The other — having students draw detailed diagrams documenting what they are learning — is prized by many teachers because it forces students to make connections among facts.”

The view from the classroom

For forty years I taught high school mathematics.  For the last thirty-eight I employed a teaching technique that paralleled the views expressed in those studies.  Whether the subject was General Math, Algebra 1, Algebra 2 or Pre-calculus I created a classroom strategy that was clearly focused on the concept of frequent and consistent testing.   It was a plan that was simple and direct. 

The centerpiece of the plan

Every class period included a quiz.  It always contained relatively simple questions that could be completed in ten to fifteen minutes.  Questions would be graded on a “right or wrong” basis with little partial credit involved.  It would be the math equivalent of a short-answer, fill-in-the-blanks question.  As the previously noted research found, the regular testing of information led to a number of extremely important outcomes.  Not only did the students retain the material better, they were also clearly aware of their academic status in the class.   A daily evaluation of one’s performance means no one is surprised by their ultimate success or failure.  The teacher also benefits from having a barometer of student learning in every class period.   A quiz that results in a significant number of poor grades requires more work on the topic.  One that indicates overall comprehension allows an educator to move forward with confidence.  Since it is critical that these papers be returned the next class meeting, they must be easy to grade.  The best utilization of time for the teacher is to be able to grade one set of papers while the next class is taking their quiz. 

A systematic approach

My overall classroom strategy was to introduce every topic in three consecutive classes.  The daily quiz was a key component of that plan.  This approach was used regardless of the level of the math or whether the school utilized a block or non-block schedule.  On day 1 a topic would be presented to the students.  An explanation of the concept would be followed by examples and then homework would be assigned to give the students practice.  Day 2 would begin with a review of the homework.  After that review was completed and all questions were answered, a quiz would be given.  Designed to cover this one concept, it was based on questions similar to those found on the homework.  On day 3 the quiz would be returned and reviewed.  

This philosophy was explained in detail to the students on the first day of school.  A typical class would be divided into four segments.  Part one was returning the quiz from the previous session and discussing any questions.  The next segment was reviewing the homework assignment.  Often a worksheet would follow to ensure understanding.  At the conclusion of that conversation the class was given a quiz.  The fourth and final element of the period was devoted to the next topic which would be then practiced in a homework assignment. The next class would be structured in the same manner.   By following this schedule every topic was discussed in three consecutive classes.

It sounds so boring

Obviously, such a highly-structured approach could be a formula for boredom.  Though the basic plan never changed, the challenge for the teacher was to create variety within the segments.  On some occasions I would have my “A” students write the quiz solutions on the board.  An “A” student was anyone who received a grade of “A” on that particular quiz.  Students quickly perceived this opportunity as an “honor” and since all students at one time or another would have a perfect paper I would take care throughout the year to have as many different students as possible receive this recognition.  It was stunning to watch otherwise sophisticated 18-year-olds become giddy when they had a chance to demonstrate their math prowess.  On other occasions, I would personally focus on any problem that was missed by a significant number of students. 

The review of the homework was also approached in different ways.  Volunteers would be solicited on some occasions; other times students were assigned problems.  A third option would have me do the work.  The practice worksheets could be presented as individual work, group projects, contests, or puzzles.  The outcome was always the same—practice—but the methods would vary from day to day. 

The introduction of the new topic would also be open to a variety of educational strategies.  Lecture, group discovery, question-answer and any other method available would be employed on different occasions.

Students love structure

People are most comfortable when they have a familiar routine.  When students feel comfortable in a class they become more confident.  By the end of the first week of school, my students understood the process and knew what to expect each day.  There were no surprises.   At the end of every year I would give my students the opportunity to complete an anonymous evaluation of the course.  When asked for the aspect that contributed the most to their success, the daily quiz was selected more often than all of the other options combined. 

The sincerest form of flattery

Over the course of my career a number of teachers adopted my “daily quiz” approach to teaching.  These individuals taught in courses all across the curriculum.  Many reported not only improved learning but also better communication in terms of student performance.  My wife, an associate Biology professor at a junior college, has successfully used the same strategy with her students. 

Clearly from my perspective those research studies are truly on to something.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I hesitate to address the sensitive topic of international comparisons with school leaders who have to face the reality of leading schools on a day-to-day basis. However, I wasn't subjected to the kind of attacks on public schools, teachers, and principals that we have experienced of the past year. In the past, when NAEP or PISA results were released, we simply shrugged our shoulders and moved on. Today, however, our teachers and community expect us to respond when asked. In fact, our silence on this matter could be deafening.

That is why I put together some talking points for school leaders on the 2009 PISA results. I have drawn from a number of sources including the Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD), which coordinates the international assessments and the Washington Post.

Background

• Begun in 2000, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a system of international assessments that focuses on 15-year-olds' capabilities in reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy.
• PISA is coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization of industrialized countries. 38 OECD nations and 28 partner nations participated in the assessment.
• PISA includes measures of general or cross-curricular competencies such as problem solving.
• PISA emphasizes functional skills that students have acquired as they near the end of compulsory schooling.
• The U.S. sample for the latest results includes both public and private schools, with 165 schools and 5,233 students participating in all. Schools are randomly selected and 15-year-old students within those schools are randomly selected.

2009 Results

• Reading: The U.S. average score in reading (500) was not measurably different than other OECD countries. U.S. female students scored higher than male students.
• U.S. 15-year-olds had an average score of 500 on the combined reading literacy scale, not measurably different from the OECD average score of 493. Among the 33 other OECD countries, 6 countries had higher average scores than the United States, 13 had lower average scores, and 14 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average. Among the 64 other OECD countries, non-OECD countries and other education systems, 9 had higher average scores than the United States, 39 had lower average scores, and 16 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average. 

• Math: U.S. average score in math was lower than the OECD average. Male students, in general, scored higher than female students. Since 2006, U.S. has caught up with 9 countries.
• U.S. 15-year-olds had an average score of 487 on the mathematics literacy scale, which was lower than the OECD average score of 496. Among the 33 other OECD countries, 17 countries had higher average scores than the United States, 5 had lower average scores, and 11 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average. Among the 64 other OECD countries, non-OECD countries, and other education systems, 23 had higher average scores than the United States, 29 had lower average scores, and 12 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average score. 

• Science: 12 other OECD countries had higher average scores than the United States.
• On the science literacy scale, the average score of U.S. students (502) was not measurably different from the OECD average (501). Among the 33 other OECD countries, 12 had higher average scores than the United States, 9 had lower average scores, and 12 had average scores that were not measurably different. Among the 64 other OECD countries, non-OECD countries, and other education systems, 18 had higher average scores, 33 had lower average scores, and 13 had average scores that were not measurably different from the U.S. average score.
• Male students scored higher than female students. Overall score was higher than 2006, and the gains in science exceeded those for math.
• The US is one of three nations that give more money to highly advantaged schools than to disadvantaged schools.
• Overall, private schools do better on PISA...until you account for SES.
• There are number of high performing economically disadvantaged schools in the US: "success is possible against all odds."

U.S. Strengths and Weaknesses

• U.S. students showed the best relative performance in answering questions that judged students’ ability to reflect and evaluate information. On that measure, the United States ranked seventh out of the 34 OECD nations.
• The weakest area for U.S. achievement was in accessing and retrieving information, for which students tied for 19th place with France.

Behind the Facts

• The PISA rankings are determined by nations’ average scores. "Some researchers have suggested, however, that average score comparisons are not useful: even presuming that the tests have some meaning for future accomplishment, average students are not likely to be the leaders in fields of mathematics and science."
• In the last administration of PISA, the United States has 25% of all high-scoring students in the world. Among nations with high average scores, Japan accounted for 13% of the highest scorers, Korea 5%, Taipei 3%, Finland 1%, and Hong Kong 1%.
• The fact that one of four high-scoring students came from the United States and the remaining high-scores came from the other 58 countries participating "suggests that many American schools are actually doing very well indeed."
• "Well-resourced schools serving wealthy neighborhoods are showing excellent results. Poorly resourced schools serving low-income communities of color do far worse."
• The U.S. had many more students scoring at the lowest levels; these kids likely can’t compete for the good jobs in the country."
• "Americans in low-poverty schools look very good, even in mathematics. They would be ranked third in the 4th grade (among 36 nations) 6th in the 8th grade (among 47 nations). This is important because while other developed nations have poor children, the U. S. has a much higher proportion and a much weaker safety net. When UNICEF studied poverty in 22 wealthy nations, the U. S. ranked 21st."
• The highest scoring countries have less diversity and less poverty.

PISA confirms what we already know. The U.S. is quite capable of producing top performing students in well-resourced schools serving middle class neighborhoods. Under-resourced schools in poor neighborhoods do not fare as well.

Resources:

OECD

Are today’s students prepared for the knowledge economy of the 21st century?

PISA: Who made the grade? (OECD)

Washington Post

Do international test comparisons make sense?

Hysteria over PISA misses the point

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The claim that experience doesn’t matter is flat-out wrong."--Matthew Di Carlo

I don't know about you, but I want an experienced airline pilot in command when I fly home in a few days. I also want an experienced physician and an experienced dentist. In fact, I can't think of any set of circumstance in which a lack of experience would be an advantage. When it came to my children's teachers, whether it was in elementary, middle, or high school, and even college, I wanted an experienced, skilled teacher. Come to think of it, I have never heard a teacher claim that he or she was a better teacher in year one than in year five.

Enter the omniscient Mr. Bill Gates, who would never dare hire inexperienced software engineers at Mircrosoft or have his child in school with commoners and inexperienced teachers, but who would try to convince us average citizens that, not only doesn't experience in teaching matter, but it is a liability.

Next, enter Secretary Duncan who insists that educators don't need education and who, "many times previously had backed eliminating experience as a criterion for judging and compensating teachers."

I don't ever recall so-called experts in any field claim that additional training was unnecessary. I have always found it ironic that the first cuts to education budgets are always professional education. What does that say about how we value education?

Think about it, budget cuts result in fewer teachers teaching more students. That means that, just to maintain the status quo, we need to increase teacher productivity. So, what do we do? Instead of increasing training to enhance the skills of teachers and principals, we tie their hands behind their backs by cutting professional development and then we motivate them by threatening to fire them if test scores don't improve.

Research Doesn't Matter?

Ironically the same folks--Gates and Duncan--who insist that others adhere to research-based practices don't read the research unless the research supports their preconceived notions of what needs to be done? Remember the last silver bullet, small schools? How did that go?

What does the research really say? Special thanks to Matthew Di Carlo who provides practitioners with an excellent synopsis of research that consistently demonstrates that experience matters a great deal in the early years on the job (also see here, here, here and here).  Here are some of the highlights:

Returns to experience are strongest in the first year of teaching.

After the first year, the rate of improvement starts to level off quickly – usually stagnating within about 4-5 years after which there is a leveling off.

Beyond the fifth year, most teachers tend to remain relatively stable in terms of their effects on student test scores (though a very large proportion leaves the profession before that point).

Context Matters

The relationship between experience and student performance is more consistent among elementary school teachers (especially compared with those in high schools).

"The effect of experience on teacher productivity may also be mediated by the quality of their peers in the same school – i.e., that novice teachers with more effective peers in the same school do better."

There is strong evidence that experience matters less – or less consistently – in poorer schools (also see here), which could be attributed to increased turnover in under-resourced schools and more student mobility.

Subjects Matter

Math teachers seem to improve more quickly (and consistently) than reading teachers.

Teachers who remain in the same grade for multiple years also improve more quickly.

"Experience is actually one of the very few observable teacher characteristics that is consistently correlated with achievement, and its effect is among the strongest, especially for some sub-groups, such as elementary school and math teachers.

Even those who think the magnitude of these returns is not commensurate with the role of experience in education policy cannot dispute that it is still a proven signal of quality, at least during the early years of teachers’ careers. And it is virtually certain that teachers also improve in other ways that don’t show up in their students’ test scores."

The Bottom Line

Experience does matter in teaching and in leading schools. We need to invest more in education--the education of our teachers and principals--so that we can increase their individual and collective capacity to raise the achievement of each and every student. Let's do for other peoples' children what we would want done for our own children. Let's give them the most experienced and skilled teachers and principals possible.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

When I read Mel Riddile’s discussion of the value of a math education my immediate response was to cheer.  For years I told my students and their parents that obtaining a degree in math was the pathway to financial success.  The Wall Street Journal chart provided in the post plainly showed that the starting salaries of math-related careers were among the highest. The paper’s analysis of the data was clear—"(the) starting pay of certain liberal arts majors generally clocks in well below that of graduates in engineering fields." Just as I began to run a victory lap around my computer, my telephone rang.

A difference of opinion

The call was from a friend who could not believe what she had just read.  The conversation began “Stu, I read the post on “Math Pays” and I thought the math/economics person in you would realize…”  From the tone of her voice I knew immediately that I was in trouble.  This individual is not only very intelligent; she also has a strong math background though her area of expertise is in liberal arts.  I must report (with no sense of pride) that I interrupted the caller to relate that I had not written the article in question.  Yes, I admit it—in a moment of panic I threw my subject under the educational bus. 

As she continued I found that her thoughts were both interesting and informative.  “…you should realize that pay differences may also be due to scarcity – as more engineers are produced wages will decline.  Also, snapshots are not trends.  Additionally, these seem like four-year degree first jobs – does this exclude graduate degree wages?”

She finished with a compelling closing.  “Wages are supposed to be the equivalent of societal value.  I’d argue that the free market undervalues jobs that are in the commons and overvalues jobs in the private sector.  Example:  no matter how logical a scientific or mathematical position may be, without political will and knowledge of the system little will get done.  Just consider issues such as global climate change and infrastructure. Knowledge of how a community functions is necessary for positive progress, yet nowhere on the chart is there anything to do with civics/political science.”

Finding some common ground

When she paused to catch her breath I quickly mentioned that I had previously written a post defending the teaching of math but with the use of social rather than financial arguments. This article brought us closer to a consensus.  Her response after reading it was “Something that really bothers me is the use of undergrad education as a high-level trade school.  We should be educating all students in the sciences, social sciences, history, math, literature. Do you know that for most Americans the last history class they take is 11th grade U.S. History?   The idea that someone in engineering school can go through four years of college and only be educated in engineering is absurd.  The idea that a student majoring in Theater can’t interpret simple statistics or identify mode, mean, median of attendance data is nonsensical.  The knowledge to understand equilibrium should not be limited to science majors.  The trend of higher education seems to be to create cogs in the economic machine at the expense of participants in a healthy society.”

The more perspectives the better

Is it possible that I have been convinced to abandon a belief I have been espousing for decades?   No, I will continue to argue vehemently that the study of math is critical for everyone. However, I do find the input of someone from outside the field extremely persuasive.  Voices representing every academic endeavor need to be heard and heeded.  If we actually listen we will soon realize that the best education is a well-rounded one. 

Perhaps my caller’s final statement presented the essential overriding thought: “My feeling is that no subject holds a monopoly on thinking skills or usefulness.”  Let me just say, “Amen”.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“Districts have to treat principals like they expect them to lead.”—The District Leadership Challenge

It’s October and it is National Principal’s Month. Congratulations, fellow principals! However, I’m confused. Are we actually honoring principals at the same time that the national plan for school reform is to fire principals first and fire principals often? I have heard stories of the preemptive firing of principals just in case their school would be placed on a state “under-performing” list.

In order to accept the authenticity of the current school reform blueprint, which, in every scenario, calls for the replacement of the principal, one must believe that principals act autonomously and that school districts have very little say-so regarding what goes on in a school. In reality, the opposite is closer to the truth. Many school districts are small and lack capacity, and, too often, principals are on their own in their efforts to turn around their schools. A recently released Wallace Foundation study indicates that “collective leadership”— “total amount of influence attributable to all the participants in a given educational system: teachers, parents, principals, district office staff, and community members”—is the key to higher student achievement and school improvement.

Teachers need and want supportive leadership to succeed in the classroom. Likewise, principals desperately need the full and active support of their district leadership in order to improve their schools.

As an SREB report on district-school alignment points out that “A central reason for the unending graduation and preparation problems is the failure of many public school districts to systematically provide the working conditions that well-trained principals need to succeed. Districts have to treat principals like they expect them to lead.”

Principals are being widely criticized for not firing bad teachers, but principals don’t control key personnel functions. The authority to hire and fire rests solely with the superintendent and the school board. Dismissing any staff member demands an often-lengthy due process procedure that some are reluctant to go through except in the most urgent cases. The dismissal process is so expensive and time consuming that some districts take the easy way out and move around weaker teachers. Principals do not have the authority to reassign teachers to other schools.

Principals who bring forward too many dismissal cases are seen as problematic. The same assistant superintendent who complimented me privately for dealing with poor performance commented in front of two school board members that I was sometimes “tough.” I responded, “You sent them to me because you knew that I would address their needs. You can’t come back to me later and say that I am tough.”

The Rubber Room

Almost eleven years ago, our high school was labeled a “failing high school” by our superintendent in a Washington Post article. I remember being compelled to sit in a room in the central office every Friday afternoon for several months with three other “failing principals.” This was our district’s version of the “principals’ rubber room.” The purpose of these meetings was for us “failing principals” to come up with a plan to turn around our under-performing schools. To this day, I don’t understand why our district would ask “failing principals” like us to come up with the solution to school improvement. That would be like a teacher asking her lowest performing students to advise the rest of the class on the best strategies for studying for tests.

On one memorable occasion, one assistant superintendent became so frustrated that she pounded her fist on the table and said, “You (principals) have to bring up your test scores.” Not knowing how to respond to this tirade, we just sat silently and stared at each other in disbelief. Finally, I spoke up. “Tell us what you want us to do and we will do it.” The assistant superintendent leaned forward, squinted her eyes and said, “That’s what we hired you to do, and, if you can’t, we’ll find somebody who can.”

Even though that outburst took place over a decade ago, incidents like that are occurring with increased frequency today. So-called experts, many who have never worked in a school, are demanding that principals improve their schools or face dismissal. ‘We have no idea how to change the culture of a school, but we’re going to fire you if you don’t.’ ‘We’re not going to train you. We’re not going to support you. We’re just going to threaten you and then fire you.’

If they have what it takes

Less than a year ago, I sat in meeting discussing one state’s strategy to turn around low-performing schools. A superintendent from a large district in the state was asked to speak to the group about his strategy to reform his district. His plan was simple and honest. “I hire principals and put them in the schools. If they have what it takes, they stay. If they don’t have what it takes, I find someone else.” By his own admission, this superintendent had no idea what his principals needed in the way of skills or training. In fact, he didn’t have the time to find out. He needed results now! He was simply going to hire and fire until he found the right person.

You are a principal?

When people asked me what I did for a living and I told them that I was a high school principal, they looked at me as though I had just landed from Mars. To most people, being in the mere presence of large groups of teenagers is intimidating. Most parents will readily admit that have their hands full dealing with their own teenagers let alone trying to work with hundreds or even thousands of other peoples’ kids.

We can’t wait for Superman

When I read the resolution honoring principals, I wonder how anyone could actually be a successful principal. In addition to a myriad of responsibilities, principals are being asked to do something that no one before us has ever done in any country--raise the achievement of all students, particularly poor and disadvantaged students, to high levels. And they are being asked to raise student performance by people who have never done it themselves and who, sad to say, have no intention of asking those who actually have.

An assistant superintendent for whom I have much respect once told me, “I was a good principal, but I never raised test scores. You are going to have to and I don’t know how you are going to do it.” Her remarks were honest and supportive, and I appreciated the fact that she was willing to partner with me to find a way to help our school succeed.

More than any other time in memory, principals are under attack, and so are our teachers. We are not the enemy! Threats of punishment and dismissal are not what principals or teachers need to help us improve schools. Instead of attracting us to work in our neediest schools, current policies are driving us away. What we need is training, support, and encouragement.

Our mission is critical to the future of our country and to the future of each of our students. We have a daunting but not impossible task. Success demands that we all work together in a collaborative partnership to improve every school. Why don’t we all admit that we don’t have all the answers and start working together to find them?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

As everyone knows by now, the Los Angeles United School District decided to publish a list ranking all of the system’s  6,000 elementary school teachers based on students’ standardized test results.  One of the most prominent proponents of the proposal was Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who said that the decision was an excellent way to recognize the best educators in the district.  I and many other people who have made a career of standing in front of students in a classroom found these remarks both troubling and inaccurate.   I find Secretary Duncan’s latest argument in favor of the practice very predictable.  According to Mr. Duncan, “In other fields, we talk about success constantly, with statistics and other measures to demonstrate it…Why, in education, are we scared to talk about what success looks like? What is there to hide?" Duncan added, "Every state and district should be collecting and sharing information about teacher effectiveness with teachers and - in the context of other important measures - with parents."  Unfortunately in an attempt to connect all of the dots to justify this decision Mr. Duncan has used some very suspect reasoning.

Misconception Number 1

The Secretary’s first mistake is to equate the LAUSD rankings to the use of statistics in other professions.  A quick look at the use of data in the most number-consumed vocation, major league baseball, shows the weakness of Mr. Duncan’s argument.  Every day on the nation’s sports pages one can find a listing of the best batting averages, home runs, victories, strikeouts, etc.  However, a baseball fan with even a minimum knowledge of the game understands the complexity of such numbers. They are aware that the player with the highest batting average or the pitcher with the most victories is not automatically the best in their league.  There are a significant number of other factors that must be considered when evaluating MLB data.  What is the quality of the player’s teammates?  For how many years has this athlete performed at this level?  Is this season an anomaly or is it the continuation of years of excellence?  What additional talents does the player bring to his team?  The actual value of a Derek Jeter cannot be measured with a few numbers.  In fact, sometimes such figures are completely upside down.  Several years ago there was a pitcher who lost twenty games in a single season. This number represented the most defeats by a wide margin. Using this singular measure this player would be viewed as the worst pitcher in the league.  But anyone with a basic knowledge of the game knew that was not necessarily the case.  At the time, a strong argument was made that in order to lose that many times, a team actually had to have a great deal of confidence in the talent of the individual. Only a pitcher who was adjudged to be competitive would be allowed to continue to play enough games to reach that level.  Thus a highly negative number, after all is said and done, proves positive.  That statistical disconnect presents a question to be asked of Secretary Duncan.  Would the average L.A. parent understand enough of the subtleties of teaching and testing to make equally educated judgments?  Can a single number next to a name give that kind of perspective?  And of equal importance do the tests measuring student performance have the same validity as the extremely precise numbers used to evaluate a baseball player?

Misconception Number 2

The marriage of the media and teacher evaluations that Mr. Duncan envisions may not end in wedded bliss.  Unlike the Education Secretary, the media is not enamored with good news stories.   Bold headlines are reserved for disasters not celebrations.  This approach was demonstrated in the original article about the release of the teacher rankings by the LA Times.  In a related link to the story was a picture of a teacher in front of a room full of students.   The caption read:  “Over seven years, John Smith's fifth-graders have started out slightly ahead of those just down the hall but by year's end have been far behind.”  While showing the more successful fifth-grade teacher would have been in line with Mr. Duncan’s stated desire to celebrate great teaching, this approach was a demonstration of traditional journalistic instincts.  Consequently, the story becomes a negative for Mr. Smith and his students or teachers and education in general.

Misconception Number 3

Mr. Duncan does not appear to understand the subjective nature of many measurement tools in education.  He may approve of the “one number tells all” LAUSD approach to rank teachers but would he approve of similar methods directed toward students?  Would he endorse evaluating a student’s overall performance with a simple look at the numbers in the grade book?  Or would he prefer a more nuanced approach that takes into consideration whether the student was in an ELL class and had a deficit in English?  Should a long-term absence for illness be factored into the mix?  Does the student have a learning disability or an unstable home life?  If a student transfers from another school with a weak background should some extra time be considered?  Evaluations of students and teachers require different tools but there are parallels.  The data being considered in both cases requires a high degree of sophistication.

Improving education is complicated.

The need to create an evaluation process that identifies the strengths and weaknesses of teachers is critical. Finding a tool that will improve a successful educator’s performance and expedites the removal of an under-performing one is an essential goal.  Creating precise tests to determine student mastery should be a priority.  But the Secretary of Education and other leaders must understand that using public exposure through the media, although easily accomplished, is not the best avenue toward achieving these objectives. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

As the 2010 political season heats up, the nation’s unemployment rate has become a key issue.    The discussion typically revolves around how the future of elected officials will be ultimately determined by the public’s assessment of the jobs situation in the country.  Arguments abound as to the causes.  Some say that the crisis is the result of the downturn in the economy, while others blame poorly implemented government interventions.  Outsourcing and greed are also worked into the conversation.  I would like to offer a contrarian view.  The United States does not have an unemployment problem.  The United States has an education problem.

Some stunning numbers

Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data illuminate some of the root causes of the current dilemma.  The overall jobless rate of 9.5% does not reveal the true story – at least not in its entirety.  Individuals without a high school diploma are more than three times as likely (13.8%) to be unemployed as people who have a college degree (4.5%). And having a high school diploma provides scant assistance (10.1%).   The economy is not merely shedding jobs; it is sending a clear message as to the economic future of our least educated. 

Far worse than it looks

While those numbers may not be surprising for some people, there are other facts that are legitimate reason for alarm.  By virtually every measure the United States is quickly becoming a world leader in high school dropouts.  A  news report on CBS related that our country which once boasted the highest graduation rate in the world now ranks 18th among industrialized nations.  If the downward trajectory continues the results would be calamitous.  This country may soon be facing an economic decline, which has little to do with derivatives and everything to do with diplomas.

Connecting the dots

The most terrifying aspect of all of these numbers is the fact that few people are really talking about them.  You cannot walk ten feet in this country without a discussion breaking out about the Mosque at ground zero, the oil spill in the Gulf or the future of Bret Favre.  And although there is also conversation about job loss, it fails to address the root cause.  If the unemployment numbers drop from 9.5% to say 8.5% the pundits will declare victory and move on to the next problem.   Even though the numbers that really matter are a high school dropout rate of more than 30% and rising, and a world rank of 18th and falling.

The world of 2010 has become a much less forgiving place for those individuals who have not completed high school.  If history is any guide, the general economy will eventually recover and the country will move on to yet another political crisis.  But the truth is until we, as a nation, find a way to ensure a good education for every citizen, the tragedy of unemployable individuals will never disappear. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

High schools make the “dropout factory” list when then they have a 60% or lower cohort graduation rate over four years. Now, colleges and universities are under the microscope, and based on Jay Mathews report on a Washington Monthly article, they should be. While encouraging my students to take a rigorous course of study in high school, I have warned them for years that “universities are more than happy to take your money and send you home,” but never in my wildest dreams did I believe that a college could have a six-year, not four-year, graduation rate of 4.98%.

You have to see it to believe it. So, here is a listing of the bottom ten:

1. Southern University at New Orleans, La. 4.98 percent
2. Allen University, S.C. 6.09
3. Martin University, Ind. 6.67
4. Bellevue University, Neb. 6.99
5. Calumet College of Saint Joseph, Ind. 7.14
6. Baker College of Auburn Hills, Mich. 7.14
7. Visible School--Music and Worships Arts College, Ind. 7.50
8. University of the District of Columbia, D.C. 7.94
9. Saint Augustine's College, N.C. 8.24
10. Nyack College, N.Y. 7.9

My reaction is simple. You can’t make this up!

Share this with your counselors and encourage them to read the article. It is an eye opener.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sarah Garland wonders out loud why a disproportionate number of high schools are involved in the turnaround grant program. She is asking the right questions, but the answers she received don’t tell the whole story. These grants may, in fact, be a case of too little too late. I thought that it might help to offer a high school principal’s perspective.

Every Grade

High schools should not be singled out for any special treatment and neither should middle or elementary schools. Every grade in school is just as important as any other. What year would you advise your own child to take off? Most likely you would want every year of schooling to be a quality experience. Everyone must come to accept the fact that every minute counts with every student. I used to believe that low-performing ninth graders had three more years to catch up. However, I learned through practice, now supported by research that those students would most likely drop out. The reality is that marginal middle school students fail in high school. Students do not suddenly lose their math or literacy skills when they walk through the doors of a high school, nor can they suddenly make up a three-year deficit after entering high school. If, as a high school principal, I were given a choice between receiving a federal turnaround grant or having students arrive at my school on-target for post-secondary education, I would not hesitate to choose the latter. I learned the hard way that waiting for students to fall behind and then spending large amounts of money to catch them up is a high-risk strategy doomed to fail.

The Funding Gap

While most would agree that every year in school is important, that is not how federal funding has flowed. In fact, when it comes to funding, the federal recording has been stuck on elementary schools for years. Policy makers have erroneously believed that a strong beginning in the early grades would carry students to success in later years. That may work for advantaged middle class students, but for under-resourced students this plan has been a disaster. In literacy for example, students who do not come from language enriched home environments need direct, explicit literacy instruction each and every year or they will not progress. To the shock and dismay of our elementary principals and teachers, our school had a significant number of students reading at grade level at the end of the third grade who were two to three years behind by grade nine.

Not ready for prime time

I once watched an assistant superintendent summarily promote a whole stack of unsuccessful students because they had simply been retained too many times. Many overage and under-credited students arrive at high school because they were “too tall to retain” any longer. They arrive with a history of low achievement, unable to read their textbook, and lacking basic computational skills. Despite that fact that only 20% of eighth graders are on target to be college-, career-, and workplace-ready, high schools are under extreme pressure to prepare students for postsecondary success.

Graduation and Dropouts

High schools are the only schools held to measures of accountability that include graduation rate, dropout rate, end-of-course exams and barrier tests. The fact is that students begin dropping out long before they reach high school.

Range of Learners

Diverse high schools with significant numbers of second-language learners like ours had students with skill levels that ranged from kindergarten through the second year of college. Our elementary principals were surprised to see that our library contained many of the same books as their own.

Size and Complexity

As we go higher in the grades the complexity of the course content and the curriculum increases dramatically. Today’s high school curriculum is extremely complex. Many high schools offer twenty or more AP or IB courses along with dual enrollment classes, CTE programs, and work-study programs. In addition they offer host of standard level courses including electives in the fine and performing arts. High schools tend to be larger because it is impossible to offer the variety of offerings in a smaller school.

Systemic Failure

My last superintendent didn’t particularly like it when I said “Whatever happens in the school system good or bad manifests itself at the high school level.” High schools are at the end of the assembly line. Whatever was or was not corrected along the way surfaces at the high school level. A number of experts have come to believe that weak schools are a result of dysfunctional district leadership and the failure to construct a properly aligned K-12 instructional program. Strong district leadership is a prerequisite to individual school success.

Our current national strategy is to stand at the end of the assembly line and inspect for defects. We are not yet about building quality into the entire K-12 process. We are still stuck in trying to inspect for quality, and that will not render the kind of results that we are looking for. Helping each and every student acquire the solid math and literacy skills they need in order to succeed in every content area is a K-12 issue and cannot be accomplished by remediating large numbers of students who were passed through the grades with glaring skill deficiencies and allowed to languish in failure and mediocrity.

It is true that the work of turning around elementary and middle schools is “potentially easier.” However, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to all students. We cannot afford to ignore millions of high school students simply because they are not the easiest to work with.

Finally, we do know how to turn around high schools. There is now an extensive body of evidence that support to successful turnaround efforts. However, high school turnaround is not easy and it takes time. In most cases, it takes at least three to five years to change the culture of a high school. Arne Duncan was right. When it comes to high school turnaround, there are no silver bullets.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

How many times have you heard Mel Riddile or I say that “given adequate time and assistance, every child can learn?”  Too many times to count, I am sure.  Why?  Mel Riddile sincerely believes that the key to success in education is maximizing contact time between teachers and students.  He even once bought t-shirts for his entire faculty with the statement “It’s about Time” emblazoned on the pockets.  And now there is more concrete evidence of the accuracy of these convictions.  A recent Washington Post editorial has shown that there is a clear link between student success and the use of increased class time and the KIPP program.  According to the paper:

“A NEW REPORT documents again that middle school students in the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) outperform their counterparts in traditional public schools -- and debunks some of the arguments often used to discount KIPP's success. One reason KIPP students learn more is that they are in school more.”

It is critical to note that the mere extension of time is not by itself a guarantee of improved student achievement.  What KIPP is doing and what others should emulate is that they are using their time in a far more efficient manner.  Some of their innovations would not be possible in the public sector due to the cost involved.  Their school day is from 7:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., which is at least two hours more than most systems.  Many KIPP schools have Saturday sessions.  In today’s economic climate the funds necessary to have similar programs in public education is, unfortunately, impossible.  (That situation will be the focus of a future blog.)  But the one KIPP innovation that deserves to be emulated is their approach to the summer.  Instead of having the vast amount of down time associated with the majority of public schools, the KIPP centers have placed several weeks of mandatory instruction right in the middle of the traditional break.

Inertia can be unproductive

American schools continue to cling to an agrarian calendar that was far more appropriate when our children actually planted the crops in the spring, tended to them in the summer and assisted in the fall harvest.  While most institutions have moved beyond the 19^th century, education, at least in structuring its calendar, is hanging onto the good old days.  And the public seems content with the status quo.  We have replaced working in the fields with trips to the beach, part time jobs, camps, and amusement parks.  In the state of Virginia there is a practice commonly known as “The Kings Dominion Rule,” which says that public schools cannot open until after Labor Day in order to ensure both the availability of a young work force and the possibility for families to visit the various state theme parks through the first weekend in September.  Combining this statute with a fluke in the calendar and in the summer of 2009 most students in the Commonwealth had twelve weeks without school.  Throw in standardized testing for the last few weeks of school and students are out of contact with direct instruction for more than 25% of the year.  Is it any wonder that the first month of most school years is spent on review?

Finding Solutions

The difference in contact time between typical public education and KIPP is immense.  The Post estimates it at about 600 more hours per year.  While it would be unrealistic to try to narrow that gap at this time, currently many districts are headed in the wrong direction and actually exacerbating the problem.  To save money, calendars are being cut, classes are being enlarged and programs are being cancelled.  In many districts remediation is being built into the day either through expanded lunch periods or separate periods, thus further reducing actual class time. 

There are, however, steps that can be taken to better utilize the time currently available.  These would not cost additional funds but would require courageous and determined leadership to break some long-held habits. 

Create a 12-month school year.  Put down the hoe and pick up a book.  Or rather, leave the beach and head for the classroom.  Create four ten-week grading periods.  Schedule breaks of two weeks in the fall and spring, three weeks in winter and five weeks in the summer.  Intervention sessions can be incorporated in the shorter breaks as well as teacher workdays.  Most summer schools have been truncated to less than five weeks so they can still be available if needed.

Schools should consider the 4x4 plan.  Instead of having six or seven classes, offer students four classes in each of the ten-week sessions.  These classes would meet in a full block every day thus completing a semester of work each session.  This change would allow students to enroll in eight courses in a calendar year.  The blocks would be slightly shorter than other schedules but by meeting every day review would be significantly reduced and ultimately create more class time for original work.

Every minute of the school day should be used for learning.  If the day begins at 7:20 and ends at 2:05 every minute should be utilized to educate.  Pep rallies, class and club meetings, and remediation will be held after school.  If they are important enough to disrupt teaching, they should be important enough to stay after to attend.  Creating a culture that believes that school activities can be consummated after the last class expands the day for everyone. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a previous post, “Just Hire the Best Teachers,” I described a situation in which, after delivering a keynote speech on school turnaround, I was told by a noted expert, “all you have to do to improve schools is hire the best teachers.” Apparently, Melinda Gates agrees. In a recent Washington Post op-ed pieces, Ms. Gates states, “The key to helping students learn is making sure that every child has an effective teacher every single year. Teachers are at the center of our strategy at the Gates Foundation,” which is currently “working with more than 3,000 teachers in seven school districts to develop measures of teacher effectiveness.”

Ms. Gates correctly points out that the schools making the biggest gains in student achievement were those doing “revolutionary work inside the classroom.” The challenge is to find out what the revolutionary work actually entails.

Her optimism is supported by the successes of schools around the country that are beating the odds including the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP). Ms. Gates observed that the key to the success of the KIPP schools was its principal and the dedicated and talented teachers on the staff. She goes on to point out that the classroom teacher is the most important variable in student achievement.

Ms. Gates then asks an important question. “Why hasn’t education policy focused more on raising teacher effectiveness? Here are my thoughts:

First and foremost, I am reminded that “for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” (H.L. Mencken) We keep saying “No silver bullet will cure the ills affecting the nation’s education system” (Arne Duncan) yet we insist on coming up with one solution after another. In fact, Ms. Gates, herself, expands the range of solutions when she attributes the success of KIPP to the principal and the teachers.

When my friend, the expert, told me that all we had to do was hire great teachers, I turned to him and said,  “Who do you think recruits, interviews, hires, and trains your great teachers?”

Teaching is a profession, and professionals learn and grow from experience. New teachers don’t walk into schools with all the skills and knowledge that they will ever need in their entire career. All new teachers must rely on mentors and advisors, most of whom are provided by the principal. Teachers must be trained in effective teacher preparation programs, and they must be nurtured and grown throughout their careers.

Teachers need instructional leadership. They need a direction and focus. If it is great teachers who make great schools, then it is those who hire, nurture and develop teachers who are equally as important to the equation.

Teachers need a support system to succeed. Learning cannot take place in a chaotic, high-threat environment. Teachers need warm and inviting, safe and orderly school environments.

Teachers need adequate, focused, and uninterrupted instructional time in order to teach each and every student. In addition to the fact that KIPP students must apply for admission, students in KIPP schools spend 68% more time on core subjects than do students in other schools in their districts.

A colleague recently confided to me that the starting teacher salary in her state was $18,000. Low starting salaries make it difficult to attract the best and brightest into teaching. While teachers don’t enter the profession for financial gain, they must make a living wage. More knowledge about teaching will not change low salaries.

Do we need more research? I am reading a book that is a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses of research into student achievement. That is a lot of research. The reality is that we need to apply the research that we already have. The problem with improving schools over the past fifty years is the fidelity of implementation. We keep searching for the silver bullet, when, in fact, we already have a good idea about what we need to do, but we don’t implement well. We are hopelessly searching for educational riches when we are literally sitting on top of acres of diamonds. I predict that no principal or teacher will be surprised by what the Measures of Effective Teaching project reveals. What we need is to stop searching for greener pastures and to focus on actually putting research into practice.

Finally, and most importantly, we all need to strongly believe that all students can be held to high standards and that they can achieve to high levels. Unfortunately, two of three teachers do not hold that belief. All the research and strategies on effective teaching will not overcome a fixed mindset. The achievement gap, may, in reality, be an expectation gap.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)