by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Mel Riddile has recently written about a venture by a group of individuals to form The Fairfax Leadership Academy, a charter school in the affluent Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) system in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C.  I wholeheartedly agreed with his strong support of this endeavor.  But not everyone is equally supportive.  In a recent article in the Washington Post Jay Mathews’ response to the proposal is unnecessarily negative and dismissive.  It undermines unfairly a plan that deserves serious consideration.

In the interest of full disclosure

Last spring Eric Welch asked me to serve as a member of the board of directors of the Fairfax Leadership Academy.  Since I live 3,000 miles away and am retired as a teacher, my involvement is far more advisory than hands-on, day-to-day participation.  My role has been limited to advice on the math program, bell schedules and the evaluation process.  I will never teach at the school, profit from the school or perhaps even visit the school.  But I do know the individuals involved in the planning and have been able to observe the steps they have taken to have their vision become a reality.  Thus, I see myself as being in a uniquely knowledgeable and somewhat objective position to discuss the merits of the Academy.

Why so negative?

In his initial paragraph concerning the proposed charter school Mr. Mathews says:

“Welcome to Fantasyland. Eric Welch just sent me a detailed plan for a public charter school in Fairfax County. He and several other people on the board of what they call the Fairfax Leadership Academy say they want to help low-income families with a school unlike any that local students have had before.”

After describing the group as “deluded” Mr. Mathews assesses their approach to gaining approval as:

“Organizers are trying to win School Board approval by groveling. Their written materials remind me of my graduate school days, reading 14th-century appeals to the Chinese emperor. ‘We recognize the merits of the current public schools in Fairfax County and do not enter this venture with any notion of trying to undermine the success of a great school system,’ they say. ‘Rather, our intention is to provide an educational program with a unique structure that will enhance the system’s ability to serve all of its students.’”

He offers their efforts a “Nice try” and a warning.

“There have never been any public charter schools in Fairfax County. There are no public charter schools anywhere in Northern Virginia. Every attempt to create one of those independently run public schools has died. Virginia law gives local school boards the power to veto charters in their territory.”

A very different perspective

It is historically accurate to say there has never been a charter school in FCPS.  Of course, it would have been equally correct to say on December 16, 1903 that no man had ever flown and on July 19, 1969 no one had ever landed on the moon.  While the Fairfax Leadership Academy is hardly in the category of flight or space exploration, the fact that it would be the first school of its kind in FCPS is hardly a reason to dismiss it with words like “Fantasy Land”, “deluded” and “grovel”. 

This charter school is a legitimate and reasonable possibility.  The people spearheading this proposal have the perfect combination of talent, experience, confidence, work ethic, wisdom and realism to create not only the first charter school in that district, but a successful one.  They have worked with at-risk populations and know what methods will translate into academic success.  Their commitment is enormous.  Most have maintained full-time jobs while being on call virtually 24/7 to do whatever is necessary to push this Academy forward.  As Mel Riddile has stated, the underpinnings of their vision of a school for underserved students is the perfect confluence of realism and idealism.  They want to provide more time for students by expanding the school day and the length of the year.  They will incorporate the best practices of AVID (Advancement through Individual Determination) and the International Baccalaureate Program.  For the teaching staff there will be an improved collaborative evaluation process that will not only assess the talents of the faculty but improve them as well.

Eric Welch and his fellow board members have not taken any shortcuts in the pursuit of their school. They have spoken to members of the School Board, community, political leaders and colleagues.  When they have been given suggestions for improvement they have made the necessary adjustments.

More than a single new school

The importance of this conversation is not the specific proposed charter school.  It is a discussion of what needs to be done to improve education.  People like Eric Welch and his colleagues who possess a clear vision for the steps required to improve learning should be encouraged - not dismissed or ridiculed.  There is certainly no guarantee that the concept of the Fairfax Leadership Academy will attain its stated goals.  Such an evaluation can only be made after a significant period of time.  What is undeniable is that progress toward creating better schools will only occur when new ideas are fully explored.   

Improving academic achievement is similar to refining a scientific theory.  It should be a slow, methodical process whereby every step is measured, evaluated and refined.  The Fairfax Leadership Academy and other innovative schools offer the opportunity for this kind of research.  Negative and derogatory comments are of no value in this critical dialogue. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:56 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Cheating in education appears to be rapidly reaching epidemic proportions.  It is both expanding in scope and escalating in its prevalence.  The most recent high profile scandal was highlighted in a post by Mel Riddile.  The outlines of the story are simple—six high school students paid a 19-year-old college sophomore $2,500 each to have him take their SAT exams at a variety of locations.

Other high profile school cheating scandals have been in the news for months.  It was revealed that in Atlanta large groups of teachers and administrators changed student answer sheets on standardized tests to improve the scores of test-takers in elementary and middle schools. 

“A July 5 report released by Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal showed officials at nearly 80 percent of 56 Atlanta elementary and middle schools examined cheated on annual student-performance tests, called Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests.”

And the incident in Georgia is merely the tip of the malpractice iceberg.  The Christian Science Monitor reports:

“The Atlanta cheating scandal also offers the first most comprehensive view yet into a growing number of teacher-cheating allegations across the US, reports of which reached a rate of two to three a week in June, says Robert Schaeffer, a spokesman for the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, which advocates against high-stakes testing.

“Former Superintendent Dr. Beverly Hall, who retired last month as head of the 48,000-student district, is accused of creating a culture of fear, pressuring faculty and administrators into accepting ever-increasing targets of achievement and turning a blind eye to the way those goals were achieved.”

The easy way out

Ask the cheaters why they did it and the answers are remarkably alike--the pressures are just too great for them to remain honest.  The teachers cheat because the administrators told them to do it.  The administrators cheat because the Superintendent demanded unrealistically high scores.  The students cheat because getting into the right college is too competitive.  They are not really guilty, pressures made them do it.  

From the perspective of someone who spent several decades in the classroom, the involvement of teachers in such activities is indefensible.  This should not be about finding ways to avoid accountability; it should be a question about the core responsibilities of an educator.  A counterfeit higher score for an elementary or middle school student may result in a school or a teacher gaining temporary success but is that really what matters?  A student whose results do not accurately reflect their skill level will be robbed of the remedial work necessary to achieve in later years.  What are these adults thinking?  How can administrators convince teachers to willingly participate in such a plan?

Taking a long hard look in the mirror

It is time to stop making excuses and to start facing reality.  The responsibility for all of these illegal activities rests squarely on the adults.  A culture of cheating has been clearly established in this country.  There are steroids that enhance performance in baseball, mortgages that are rigged to fail, college athletes who receive under the table payments, and elections that are won on bogus “facts”.   In not one of these examples have there been significant penalties.  Steroid users are still playing ball; lending institutions are bailed out; Cam Newton wins a national championship and millions of NFL dollars, and no one on Wall Street goes to jail.

Education is no better.  The Atlanta Superintendent is earning a nice pension in retirement.  The former chairman of their school board has moved to Newark to work with the $100 million FaceBook grant.  As Mel Riddile relates “There is no consequence for cheaters. The (SAT) tests are simply removed.  Neither colleges nor high schools are ever alerted that cheating was suspected.”   Stopping such behavior is not aggressively addressed.  “Students are not required to take the test at their own school.  School officials do not receive a list of test takers ahead of time, which some believe would improve security.”

There are clearly adult fingerprints on all of the cheating scandals.  How do high school students pay $2,500 to an imposter without raising suspicions at home?  That sum would hardly seem to be in the realm of “allowance” money.  And it was the teachers and administrators who altered the students’ tests in Atlanta. 

The people in charge of education are failing at virtually every turn.  Only 20 states have set aside funds to investigate suspicious erasures on standardized tests.  Sixty percent of the country will not dedicate the funds necessary to discover dishonesty.  Crucial tests are written in multiple-choice formats because they are cheaper to write and grade.  Such questions are also most susceptible to cheating but that is not enough of a concern to invest the funds necessary for creating more secure tests.   While the message educators always send is clearly that cheating is wrong and unacceptable, the actions taken do not match the rhetoric.

Education has been entrusted with the heavy responsibility of preparing the next generation to move into leadership roles in our country.  Implementing instruction that will give our students the skills to read, write, calculate and reflect are important.  But we must also set a standard of integrity.  Honesty is a virtue that needs to be valued and nurtured.  Cheating is always wrong and should never be tolerated.  No excuses allowed.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:04 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post Mel Riddile discussed the adverse effect of educators failing to fully utilize available technology.  He pointed to the fact that too often various tools are bought for schools and then are not used effectively. 

“We cannot fairly evaluate something that we have not implemented. We can't say that a diet didn't work if we never tried it…We are still dabbling around the edges of technology integration.

“In fact, we educators are unintentionally doing more harm to the argument for more technology than we are doing any good.”

In a follow-up post I endorsed those sentiments by contrasting his concerns with the manner in which the calculator has been integrated into the high school math classroom. 

“By introducing 21stcentury technology into math, the course became alive and intriguing for 21st century students.  Regardless of the price tag it was an educational bargain. 

And more importantly, it had, in the words of Mel Riddile, become a "necessity."   The incorporation of the graphing calculator in math should serve as a role model for the rest of school-based technology.”

When good technology goes bad

While it is clear that tools like the graphing calculator can enhance the educational experience and need to be utilized fully, there is no guarantee that all technology is of equal benefit in the classroom.  One of my former colleagues was quick to inform me that a blanket endorsement of the utility of every device is a mistake.

“No one loves technology more than I do; I use it whenever I can.  But there is one thing that too many people don’t understand about employing it in the classroom—if it’s not ‘plug and play’ it is often not worth the effort.  If something is unreliable, complicated or ill-conceived it will most likely be abandoned or discarded.

“For example, I loved “Logger Pro."  It allowed the kids to collect and analyze data quickly.  It made labs more informative, allowed students to use data rather than to just collect it.   It was much like the graphing calculator. It basically involved an “on” and “off” switch to operate.  Instead of spending time fighting with balky equipment, the time was spent with the students analyzing the information they had obtained.

“That is not always the case.  Many of the innovations that are offered to teachers either don’t deliver the advertised results or don’t work at all.  To be effective in a classroom it has to be ‘plug and play’ and that means play effectively.”

Going off the “deep” end

She is not alone in her experiences.  For all of the good results that the calculator brought to the math classroom there were tech horror stories as well.  In the mid-nineties my school district made a huge financial investment in a particular software program, which was advertised as a self-guided learning tool for Algebra 1.  For weeks the teachers tried in vain to make the system work.  Untold hours of class time were lost.  Finally, in frustration I called the company’s educational liaison to explain the nuances of the program at a math department meeting.  Twenty minutes into the planned presentation she was still struggling to get the software functioning.  As the room became restless she asked for ten more minutes. It was to no avail; as teachers began to drift out of the computer lab she promised to come back at a later date when she was better prepared.   We never saw her again.  The software was “deep-sixed” by the department.

Lessons learned

Wasting thirty or forty minutes of a teacher’s afternoon is unfortunate but not disastrous.  However, fumbling with recalcitrant software in front of 30 adolescents for even half that amount of time is an educational nightmare.  Likewise trying to set up a complicated piece of technology in the seven minutes of passing time between classes is a formula for a classroom meltdown.   Patience is not a typical characteristic of high school students.   Any new method of instruction is usually allotted only one opportunity to fail.

Making classroom technology work

Mel Riddile is correct in setting a goal of fully implementing technology in the classroom. Such an approach is essential for preparing students to be successful in the world of 2011.  Classroom instruction must reflect the tools available both inside and outside the school.  There are, however, several guidelines that need to be followed:

1. Training requirements must be centered on the teachers not the students.  Teachers can afford to invest time in learning how to effectively use new technologies.  What they cannot afford is spending large amounts of time in class to instruct and reinstruct 30 individuals on how to employ the equipment.  Effective technologies should require little more than a flip of a switch by students.
2. Equipment must be dependable.  A lesson plan based on a piece of software or a data-gathering device that fails, results is lost class time – a precious commodity in education.  Therefore a high level of reliability is a key requirement for any piece of classroom equipment.
3. Technology must enhance instruction.  Too many pieces of expensive equipment can be found gathering dust in storage rooms across the nation.  Some new innovations represent marvelous technological breakthroughs but often do little to actually improve instruction.  Before purchasing any new teaching tools, districts should seek input from teachers who have extensively used the devices under consideration.  Something that is essential for a Social Studies class may have little or no value in a Physics lab.
4. Customer service must be effective and readily available.  When the inevitable problems with technology arise, teachers must be able to obtain quick and reliable support.  The in-school specialists are rarely equipped to help with such specific questions.  Quality help should never be more than one phone call or email away.
5. The equipment must be easy to set up and take down.  Teachers may need to utilize a specific technology for one class but not for the one that precedes or follows it.  It must also be portable.  Teachers move from one classroom to another and/or share equipment with multiple teachers, the technology has to be equally mobile.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:58 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Mel Riddile recently lamented the failure of educators to embrace the use of technology.  His angst was ignited by a comment in an article published in the New York Times.

“In a recent New York Times article, Matt Richtel put it bluntly. ‘Schools are spending billions on technology, even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning.”

Dr. Riddile agrees that technology is not having the intended impact in education but for very different reasons.

“Because we are so used to "making do" with less, we are actually doing technology integration a disservice by allowing people like Matt Richtel to believe that we have fully implemented technology in our schools when, in actuality, scarce resources are forcing most schools to tinker around the edges giving lip service to technology integration without the tools needed to make it happen school wide.”

His final point is that items that are designed to augment classroom instruction fall into one of three categories:  novelty, nicety or necessity.   The argument is simple—until technology becomes a necessity in the daily activities of a course, it will never reach its full potential. 

An example of a "necessity"

As a math teacher from 1968 until 2008 I was witness to the evolution of the real “new math”.  Not that stuff that was talked about in the run-up to the Apollo Space Program.  I am talking about the introduction of the graphing calculator into the high school classroom.   It began as a trickle when a few Casio and Texas Instruments products began to appear in the classroom.  But as the capabilities of these hand-held devices became clearly evident, math educators began to take notice.  More than fifteen years ago Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia decided to invest millions of dollars to ensure that every Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 student in the district had 24/7 access to a TI-83 during the entire school year. 

Weighing priorities

The use of any technology has downsides.  “Spell Check” has created a nation of poor spellers.  Doctors are no longer the only folks with illegible handwriting.  Automatic dialing has left most of us helpless when trying to remember a phone number in an emergency.  And don’t get me started on passwords.  So not surprisingly the influx of graphing calculators met significant resistance.   They quickly diminished the ability of students to mentally do fundamental calculations.  Many parents and teachers were appalled.  The comment “We are turning out a generation of math illiterates” was spoken in a variety of forms.  But the reality was just the opposite.  Instead of producing students who could do simple arithmetic in their heads, we were now capable of creating mathematicians. 

In my own classroom I was observing the profound difference such technology could make.  Instead of spending three weeks learning how to find a logarithm, students were spending that time using logarithms to solve complex math problems.  Graphs that would require a class period to create were now instantly available to analyze and utilize.  Topics once considered too complex to be discussed were now routine work.   The entire subject matter had been revitalized.  Real world problems were not only being solved they were being demonstrated on a screen.  For years I had been envious of the power of the lab experiment in Science classrooms; that was no longer the case.  Students in my classroom were launching rockets, discussing world population growth and determining the probability of winning the lottery without ever leaving their seats. 

Questions, questions, questions

The implementation of any technology always raises concerns.  For many parents the fear of the calculator was that it would somehow allow students to do well without working hard—in essence level the playing field for unmotivated students.  Actually, the converse was true.  Virtually every technology favors the individual who knows what they are doing.  The phrase “garbage in, garbage out” is appropriate in this conversation.  I would explain this situation to students and parents by saying, “A calculator is really quite stupid.  It will do whatever you tell it to do.  It will never tap you on the shoulder and say, ‘Are you really sure you want to input that?’”  But I could assure them that in the right hands it could perform mathematical magic.   

After a few years I became downright strident in my support.  When unenthused parents would ask “But what happens when the batteries die in the calculator?” I would answer “Buy new batteries.”

Use it or lose it

In the typical math class at my school the graphing calculator became a critical part of the daily lesson.  It was utilized to intensify the curriculum, bring the real world into the classroom and produce accurate and meaningful work.  By introducing 21stcentury technology into math, the course became alive and intriguing for 21st century students.  Regardless of the price tag it was an educational bargain.  And more importantly, it had, in the words of Mel Riddile, become a necessity.   The incorporation of the graphing calculator in math should serve as a role model for the rest of school-based technology.   

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:42 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

According to the Washington Post, all 27 Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) high school principals are fed up.  They are tired of an apparently never ending string of cafeteria food fights that are occurring on a regular basis in their buildings.  It is critical for the public to understand that these events bear scant similarities to the iconic scene from “Animal House”.  According to the Post:

“One day in March, pranksters turned the cafeteria at Robert E. Lee High School in Fairfax County into a maelstrom of hurled milk cartons and leftover lunch.

“Close to 100 teenagers joined the melee, flinging sandwiches and water bottles. Hundreds of others, caught in the crossfire, screamed and ran for the exits. A 17-year-old, eight months pregnant, was knocked to the ground.

“Two students — recent immigrants who presumably had little experience with the modern American food fight — hyperventilated to such a degree that officials called 911.”

Clearly, unlike scenes from a movie, there is nothing funny about these incidents. And many are far from random.  A related article described another dust up at a different FCPS school, which featured hundreds of raw eggs and a false fire alarm all of which resulted in more than 600 students fleeing in a treacherous and slippery panic. Add the possibility of salmonella contamination and you have raised the potential negative outcomes to a whole new level.  Since it is hard to imagine raw eggs as a typical item in a student backpack, this food fight was hardly an impromptu event.

What the principals want

According to the principals in the district, they have limited avenues for controlling the situation.  Rarely are the guilty parties being caught and punished.  Consequently they are requesting the installation of cameras in the cafeterias as a deterrent.  At a cost of $8,000 per school this request would seem reasonable.  In fact, all but three of the principals have offered to fund the cameras out of their own school monies.  The debate within the school community appears to be centering on privacy issues. 

From the classroom teacher’s point of view

While the potential physical harm from these food fights should be sufficient to mandate the installation of the cameras, there are educational reasons to consider as well.  The learning environment of a school is a delicate balance.  The days prior to winter break, the first warm spring day or the simple forecast of snow can make maintaining student focus difficult.  Any incident such as the one at Lee HS, which includes flying food, ambulances, ruined clothes and hundreds of students milling around in hallways will bring academic pursuits to a complete halt.  Ask any of the teachers at that school how their afternoon classes responded to the curriculum that day.  In fact, that question could easily be expanded to the academic progress for the rest of that week. 

Install the cameras!

The privacy arguments are a bit vague. It is difficult to understand exactly what a video of a cafeteria would reveal that would be such an invasion.  It is highly doubtful that the film would be used to evaluate a student’s eating etiquette.  What it could do, however, is pinpoint the perpetrators of fights (food and otherwise), bullying, drug transactions among other negative behavior.  More importantly until such activities are stopped, the education of a large portion of a school population will continue to be hijacked. 

It is time to give principals the ability to roll the tape!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:17 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

On August 31 “NBC Nightly News” Brian Williams moved into a commercial break with a tease of his next segment.  “As more and more school districts are moving to a four-day week, parents are asking, ‘What are we supposed to do with our kids on that extra day?’.”  While enduring two minutes of upbeat advertising for medications to lessen the impact of a variety of hideous diseases, I was extremely upset.  “Good grief, the school week is being cut to four days and the number one parental concern is daycare,” I thought to myself.

When the actual story unfolded it quickly became apparent that it would exceed my worst fears.   The actual focus of the piece was a series of comments by educators praising the benefits of the abbreviated school week.  A principal at an Oregon high school explained that due to budget problems the district had moved to four longer days of school in lieu of the traditional five-day week.   He was quick to point out that the students would be in school the same number of hours and not to fear that any taxpayer money was being wasted teachers were required to come to work on Fridays to do planning.  He then began to explain how student performance was improving under the new plan.  “It’s a paradox, less is more, less is more for these kids’ learning.”  The piece continued with several more references to how this seemingly contradictory set of circumstances was a positive for the students in the system.   In another school system preparing to move to the shortened week, an educational leader explained that this change was not about saving money but rather improving education.

A defiance of logic and reason

Perhaps these folks have never heard of the “Hawthorne Effect” where individuals tend to improve their immediate performances as the result of increased attention or change whether it is positive or negative.   Arguing that the addition of another day away from school will result in improved academic performance is ignoring the fundamentals.  Assuming that these high schools are on block scheduling (if not imagine an adolescent taking seven classes every day over a ten-hour period) the four-day week would have the typical student taking a math course on Monday and Wednesday and then setting that curriculum aside until five days later on the next Monday.  Throw in a holiday and there will be nearly a week between classes.  The same problems would exist for any discipline requiring retention of skills such as foreign language or music.

There would be equal problems for after school activities.  Picture trying to whip a marching band into shape after a school day that has lasted from 7:30 in the morning until 5:30 that evening?  Would dinner be served before or after rehearsal?

Research shows that human beings have limited attention spans.  For teenagers those numbers can usually be cut in half.  Going back to that class schedule, how academically effective would an extra 25 minutes be in those 115-minute blocks?  And who would want to be teaching osmosis or how a bill becomes a law in hours nine and ten of that elongated school day?

Finally, the principal in the story announced that attendance at his school had also improved.  That can happen when you reduce the number of days by 20%.

The much bigger question

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the financial circumstances facing states and communities are going to improve in the near future.  More and more difficult budget decisions are going to be required.  If the past is any indication, much of that burden will be placed on education.  Such a course of action is wrong; making arguments that it will make learning better is worse.  The current unemployment numbers reveal the folly of this approach.  The correlation between employment and education is clear.  Individuals without a high school diploma are three times as likely to be jobless than someone with a degree.  The core problem in this country is not a lack of work; it is a lack of appropriately trained workers.

Taking the wrong path

To perfect one’s serve in tennis which approach would be better—practicing one hour a day, seven days a week or just hit the ball for seven hours on Monday and take the next six days off?   The better path is obvious.  Those folks in Oregon and the more than 100 other communities that have moved to a four-day week seem to believe that the truncated school week is a model for improving their schools.  It is not.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:15 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In an effort to close their minority achievement gap, Montgomery County (MD) Public Schools (MCPS) like many other school systems has turned to Disneyland for educational advice.  According to an article in the Washington Post:

”In their ongoing quest to eliminate academic achievement gaps, Montgomery County educators are seeking help from the Magic Kingdom.

“It is not enough, they realized, to spend more on poor children or to promote college-level classes for all if school employees are not fully committed to the cause.

“Maryland’s largest school system sent a delegation to Disney’s complex in Orlando a few years ago for a lesson in motivating employees from a company that specializes in making dreams come true.”

And what advice did this considerable investment of time and money obtain?

“‘People need a reason to come to work. At Disney, we teach our employees the first day that we are here to create happiness,’ said Bruce Jones, programming director for the Disney Institute, which coaches outsiders in the entertainment giant’s business methods. ‘What we talk about with educators is, ‘Let’s not forget why we got into this: These are real kids.’”

No wonder the place is called “Fantasyland”.  Rest assured, any teacher who has stood in front of a classroom filled to overflowing with students fresh from more than two months of summer vacation is well aware that there are “real kids” sitting in those chairs.  And, unfortunately, learning how to derive the quadratic formula does not always equate into “happiness”.

Outside advice is not all bad

Utilizing the thoughts of non-educators can be beneficial.  In previous posts, I have quoted Vince Lombardi, Bill Gates and Mark Twain among others.  What is troubling about the MCPS adventure in the Magic Kingdom is the actual advice being rendered.  While any business as successful as Disney has important lessons to share, the goals of education and those of an amusement park do not significantly overlap.  In the Disney orientation, which is called “Transitions” there is a review of the company history and a screening of clips of old Disney movies, which have reportedly brought many new employees to tears.   Now MCPS has its own orientation for new personnel which is also being titled “Transitions” and includes a history of the county, films about outstanding employees and concludes as a virtual revival meeting.  According to the Post:

“During one session in Rockville on a muggy August afternoon, three dozen recently hired teachers and bus drivers were introduced to their new employer’s vision statement in evangelical call-and-response fashion.

“A high-quality education is a fundamental right for who?” asked a high-energy facilitator. “Every child,” came the muffled response. “For WHO?” the call came again. “Every child,” the group said, a little louder.

“That’s right,” the facilitator said. “Every child.”

While there were no reports of widespread weeping among the participants, based upon my own experiences with such activities it would appear to be a possibility – and not in a good way.

The minority achievement gap is not a fairy tale

All of these machinations are the result of persistently lower academic performances by the district’s Hispanics and African-Americans when compared to Caucasians and Asians.  It is a problem that has existed for decades.  The county’s educational leaders have decided that the root cause of the disparity is low expectations on the part of teachers when dealing with these under performing groups.  It would appear that this latest approach by MCPS is just another attempt at finding an overly simplified answer to a very complex question.  If the significant differences in student performances between certain groups were a statistical blip on the educational radar screen much like an excessively hot summer, it could be explained away by employee incompetence or ignorance.  But these are entrenched problems that have been consistently in place for years.  Instead of soliciting the advice of a successful movie studio, schools need to look for fundamental structural changes that could actually directly address the achievement gap.

Not as entertaining as the seven dwarfs but…

From the point of view of an educator here are seven ways to attack the minority achievement gap:

Improve hiring practices.  Create a process for acquiring new personnel that would determine the quality of their work before they stand in front of a classroom.  Invest the time and resources necessary to make the interviewing of candidates a multi-tiered procedure that would accurately determine the best applicants.

Improve the evaluation process.  Hire professional evaluators who would not only establish the strengths and weaknesses of each staff member, they would have the tools necessary to improve the individuals being observed.

Create an effective termination policy.  Most poor teachers are failures with all of their students not just the ones at-risk.  However, those weaker students are often the most affected by poor teaching.  Schools must institute policies that would allow them to remove under-performing personnel in a timely manner.

Hire statisticians to determine root causes of low academic performances.  Instead of pulling out charts that demonstrate the obvious—certain groups are continually under-performing—do the research necessary to find out the fundamental reasons for these problems.  On numerous occasions it has been clearly demonstrated that low scores are far more about poverty than they are race based.

Encourage underrepresented minorities to take more challenging courses.  Sometimes students need a little encouragement; other times they require a bit of a push.  Establish a school environment where counselors and teachers are continually setting high standards for all students.

Offer incentives to work in low-income schools.  In the accountability-based schools of 2011 it is increasingly difficult to entice quality educators to work in the most difficult schools.  Offer higher pay, more creativity and leadership roles to outstanding personnel to perform in buildings with the greatest need.

Better prepare new teachers.  Instead of revival meetings give meaningful training.  Establish “teaching” high schools much like physicians have “teaching” hospitals and allow new educators to learn their craft appropriately.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:14 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

When No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was first presented in the early years of the Bush Administration it represented a significant shift in educational policy.  End-of-course exams like Virginia’s Standards of Learning (SOL) were soon to become a measure of a school’s success.  The initial requirement of a 70% pass rate in English and Math appeared challenging but reasonable.  Of course, most educational professionals acknowledged that such a level could only be a starting point.  When the SOL exams became a barrier to graduation, no one would have been satisfied with such a low target.  As the Fairfax County Public Schools (VA) Coordinator of Math told me at a department chair meeting at the time, “We have to be striving for something closer to 100%.” 

In the first few years before NCLB went into effect, most systems struggled to reach the 70% level but each year brought higher scores and by the time this requirement had become mandatory the majority of schools were deemed to be making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  In slow, realistic increments the benchmarks began to rise.  These initial goals continued to be well within reach.  

The collision of idealism and reality

There is, however, a time bomb planted deep inside the legislation.  The necessary pass rate for AYP reached 89% last year, a point that became difficult to attain for an increasing number of schools especially in the sub-groups of Special Education and some minorities.  But more importantly, there was a lack of common sense at the endpoint of this relentless march upward. 

In 2014 the requirement for AYP will become 100%.  While such a percentage would literally leave no child behind it also empowers certain students to hold an entire building hostage by choosing to fail a test or at least not giving it their best effort.   

Why would a student not give his best on a standardized test?  Because some tests, although the results are included in the school’s data, are not considered barrier tests for the student.   It doesn’t matter what the student makes, but it can be devastating for the school’s statistics and their AYP.

Surprisingly, as 2012 testing comes into focus, there has been plenty of activity but little effort to address this reality.  Instead of facing the obvious—some children are going to be left behind regardless of the effectiveness of a school— band aids are being applied to the program.  In lieu of adjusting impractical expectations, special temporary exemptions are being issued.  Schools are being given additional time to reach an unreachable goal. 

The irony in all of these machinations is that if the majority of schools did attain test results with no failures, it would be likely that the methods of assessment and/or grading would have to be considered suspect.  Virtually every outcome of 100% is a source of concern.  When Saddam Hussein would win an election with 99.1% of the votes everyone knew the results were rigged.  Garrison Keillor’s Lake Woebegon children are all “above average”, a statement which is intended to be satire, not reality.  Expecting a typical school to have a perfect pass rate is equally ridiculous.  The result of such expectations will be to place inordinate pressure on the school staff and test creators to find ways to pass even the most recalcitrant of students.  In such a case the validity of all test scores will be diminished.  In addition, the recent spate of cheating scandals would likely increase in the wake of such outrageous expectations.  Ask a successful teacher what they would think if every student in all of their classes made an “A” on their final exam.  The answer would reflect on the quality of the test and/or whether it had somehow been compromised. 

Listen to the coach

Vince Lombardi wrote, “Always strive for perfection.  Though you will never achieve it, you may pass excellence along the way.”  Apparently, the authors of NCLB did not read the coach’s book.  Everyone wants all students to be successful.  But this is an aspirational goal, not a realistic one.  Any 100% rule can neither be implemented nor enforced.  However, instead of changing the rule to reflect authentic academic success for as many students as possible, there has been a flood of exceptions, exemptions and excuses.  It is time for a more realistic approach.  While it is true that a rising tide will raise all ships, exam grade inflation will not do the same for actual student performance.   A requirement of a 100% pass rate will surely lead to a disastrous scenario.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:17 AM | Permalink

By Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The key to creating an illusion is to distract the viewer.  Draw the attention away from the sleight of hand and the audience will believe they have seen magic.  Apparently this technique is now a key element when dealing with the analysis of standardized test results.  The plan appears to be to use some new and often outrageous assertion to distract the public and “abracadabra” many of the problems inherent in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and end-of-course standardized testing magically disappear. 

The latest form of deception is an idea being floated by educational leaders in Virginia.  They are considering a proclamation announcing that a “pass advanced” on the state’s Standards of Learning (SOL) exams is an indication of college preparation.  The word “advanced” in most contexts indicates a significant level of accomplishment; in this case, however, it should not be confused with readiness for post high school study. 

It is actually more of a numbers game

At first glance a “pass advanced” might appear to be a significant achievement.  It requires a score of 500 or more on a test scaled to go from 200-600 (400 is required for passing).  But as in other forms of magic, these numbers are an illusion.  Like many other end-of-course exams being used for NCLB, the SOL is a four-option multiple-choice test with no penalties for wrong answers.  Consequently the actual range of scores is not nearly as large.  The laws of probability decree anyone answering 50 such questions would start with 12 or 13 correct responses simply by random guessing.  In 2011 a passing score of 400 on the Algebra 1 exam required 23 correct answers.   As a result of that scale, every student begins with a score of at least 340.  Thus the real possible range is 340-600.  Suddenly a tally of 500 does not seem quite so “advanced”. 

Forty-four correct answers will earn a student a 500.   Even if this were an exam with open-ended questions and penalties for wrong responses, mastery of only 88% of the curriculum is hardly college-level work.   But with a multiple-choice, no penalty format, 44 accurate responses represent much less.  A few quick calculations reveal that if a student can answer 42 questions, probability will produce the missing two from the remaining eight.  Now the mastery level is down to 84%--a “B-“on most grading scales.  Even those numbers are a bit skewed.  If an individual can eliminate one or two potential answers in a question the likelihood of a successful “guess” increases exponentially. 

Adding to these misperceptions is the limited nature of such forms of questions.  They cannot require multiple-step responses or demand a true demonstration of mastery of the most complex or intricate aspects of a subject.  They can only ask questions that have reasonably simple answers.  It quickly becomes clear that based on almost any analysis, a pass “advanced” on these tests is not a predictor of college success. 

To get quality, you need quality

As Mel Riddile discussed in a previous post, tests made on the cheap are susceptible to both cheating and inflated results.   If Virginia and other states want to administer tests that are indicators of future educational success, they will need to move away from the current easy-to-grade and inexpensive formats and invest in exams that will accurately measure a student’s mastery of a class.  Until then, any claim of academic prowess based on the results is nothing more than an illusion and distraction.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:41 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The test scores for the Washington D.C. schools are in and while they are generally disappointing what is more informative is the fact they clearly demonstrate one of the fundamental causes of low academic performance—poverty.

This is not a new or original discovery.  Mel Riddile organized data clearly indicating that the U.S. scores on the most recent PISA tests were far more about socio-economic issues than poor teaching.  But these numbers from the Nation’s Capitol place an exclamation mark on his assertions.

A quick tour of Washington D.C.

I once heard someone say that zip codes are the best predictors of standardized test scores.  Three of the eight wards in the District of Columbia reinforce the validity of that comment.

Ward 3:  has a median household income of $97,690 and less than 4% of families with minor children are below the poverty line.  

Ward 7:  More than one-third (34%) of families with minor children live in poverty, and the median household income is $34,966.

Ward 8:  The poorest of the city’s eight areas where two of every five children (40%) have incomes below poverty level and the median household income is $31,188.

A comparison of scores

The elementary and secondary math pass rates in Ward 3 indicate that students scored more than 40 points higher than those in Ward 7 and 50 more than Ward 8­. Test results in different subject areas parallel those of mathematics.

But there are other areas that demonstrate the imbalance between rich and poor.  Using the city’s own criteria for teaching excellence, the IMPACT evaluation, the vast majority of the higher rated educators gravitate to the wealthier areas.  Only 71 of the top 663 teachers in the system worked at 41 schools located In Ward 7 and Ward 8.  That represents an average of less than two per school.  In the ten Ward 3 schools there were 135 of these educators placing on average more than 13 highly effective teachers per building.

A vicious cycle of failure

These statistics underscore what is already known.  Students at poor schools do not perform as well as those at wealthy ones.  It also emphasizes that in an era of accountability based in large part on these results, a preponderance of the top educators in a district will migrate to the more well-to-do buildings.  School leaders need to recognize this disparity and address it by offering incentives for top level administrators and teachers to work at low-performing schools. These could include both financial rewards and a different and enlightened approach to measuring progress in test results in areas that traditionally do poorly.

Otherwise, the academic story in Washington D.C. will continue to be a microcosm of entire country.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:13 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

I am starting to feel like many educational leaders are approaching the instruction of math as if it were a game of “Jeopardy”.

            “Bill, it’s your turn to choose.”

            “Alex, I’d like to move to ‘Math Solutions’ for 200.”

            “Starting a new category, the answer is…‘8th grade Algebra’.  Bill, you buzzed in first.”

            “What is the solution for every math concern?”

            “That is correct”.

            “I’ll take ‘Math Solutions’ for 400”.

            “Continuing in the same category the answer is…‘8thgrade Algebra’.  Bill you’re first again.”

            “What should every student be required to take to improve math education?”

            “Correct again, you’re on a roll!”

            “Let’s take ‘Math Solutions’ for 600.”

            “Staying in the same category, the answer is…‘8th grade Algebra’.  Bill again.”

            “Uh, what, uh, what will guarantee admission for every student to any university in America?”

            “Right again, please continue…”

While this scene may seem hyperbolic or ludicrous, the reality is not too far behind.  The prevailing attitude in math education appears to be that the best solution is the 100% rule—academic policies must apply to “everyone”.   As Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger did it when he decreed that every student in his state must take Algebra 1 by the eighth grade.  My former school district took the same path five years ago when it announced that the goal of the system was to have all students take Algebra 1 prior to entering high school.  Similar sentiments have been voiced all over the country.  But as Mel Riddile points out in a recent post, a story from California demonstrates the potential pitfalls of such an approach.

A tale of two school districts

The Dailybreeze.com a site that covers stories in the Southern California area reports:

“The Manhattan Beach Unified School District boasts the third-highest test scores in the state of California. So it would be natural to assume that a relatively large share of its eighth-graders is on the accelerated track in mathematics. Conversely, the Lennox school district has the highest rate of poverty in the South Bay. One might assume that a disproportionate number of its eighth-graders take it slower in math.

“But the opposite is true.  In affluent Manhattan Beach, 44 percent of eighth- graders took algebra I or higher in 2009-10, the latest available data from the California Department of Education. The corresponding figure in Lennox was 94 percent.”

While it is surprising that the far wealthier of the two districts has the lower percentage of students enrolled in 8th grade Algebra 1, the outcomes are not.  In 2009-10 only 27% of the students in Lennox scored proficient on the state’s Algebra 1 end-of-course exam.  That translates into three of every four students in the accelerated math failing the test.   Meanwhile the scores for Manhattan Beach soared.  According to Tom Loveless, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institute, "If you're a student from a disadvantaged background - and are African-American or Hispanic - you are more likely to be placed in an algebra class in eighth grade than if you are a white suburban kid in an affluent district".  Such results are not isolated to California.  Three years ago Loveless conducted a study of eighth-grade students across the country.  Based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores he found that among the lowest 10% of students tested, one-third were enrolled in Algebra 1 at the time.

A better way to go

So if the Manhattan Beach Unified School District is not pushing all of its 8th graders into Algebra I, how are they achieving such high test scores?  More than 30% of the eighth-graders in these schools take Algebra 1 part 1.  They then proceed to Algebra 1 in the ninth grade and with a solid two-year foundation in the subject then move on to Geometry, Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus.  John Jackson, principal of Manhattan Beach Middle School, is unapologetic about his school’s percentage of Algebra 1 students and two-year approach to the course for a significant portion of the eighth grade. “Our job is to get them ready for high school, and that's what we do really well.”

And then there is the science

A recent article in the Washington Post discussed the neurological reasons that some students are not prepared for Algebra 1.   The author, Rob Coppock, has a unique set of qualifications—he taught middle school math after a career as a research scientist.  Now retired from education he saw first-hand the potential damage that pushing the wrong students could cause.

 “To oversimplify the neuroscience, the cortex, or outer layer of the brain, matures from back to front. Parts of the brain associated with more basic functions, such as motor and sensory functions, mature first, followed by areas involved in spatial orientation, speech and language development. Areas involved in attention, evaluation and motor coordination develop last.

“The problem is that the normal pace of development for some students means their brains are physiologically not capable of understanding algebraic abstractions.”

The price of failure

What seems to be lost in the drive to push unprepared students into taking Algebra in grade 8 is the cost in terms of student self-confidence.  On a recent HBO “Real Sports” episode, Tiki Barber was asked how his troubles transitioning from pro football to broadcasting had affected him.   “I really tried, but when you try and fail, it’s hard to keep trying.  I would sit in my office and do nothing after that.”  Barber was 34 years old at the time his NBC career ended.  He is a graduate of the University of Virginia and during a brilliant NFL career participated in multiple Pro Bowls.  If someone with those credentials was devastated by being unsuccessful, what are the expectations for fourteen-year-old eighth graders who are overwhelmed by a curriculum in which they experienced scant success in the past?   Tiki Barber is preparing to return to his athletic career; what are the options for an adolescent in a similar mindset?   How many 8th graders are learning to hate mathematics, viewing success in school as beyond their abilities and ultimately beginning to consider dropping out as a dignified retreat?   

Final Jeopardy

If I were a contestant on my imaginary game show, my response to the answer “8th Grade Algebra” would be, “What course should definitely be taught in the eighth grade, but only for those students who are prepared academically, emotionally and neurologically to succeed?”  And then I would change categories.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:04 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Evaluation of teachers is one of the hottest topics in the world of education.  The conversation ranges from how much testing should count, to finding ways of incorporating it into the pay scale.  Everyone knows that what we have is not working and there is pressure to develop a new process that will work in the 21st century.  Ironically, the solution for many of these concerns could be hiding in plain sight.

I am on an advisory board for a fledgling charter school.  One of the tasks I was asked to perform was to formulate an evaluation policy.  Starting with a blank sheet of paper, it was quickly apparent this undertaking was going to be quite daunting.  However, a one-minute Google search revealed a surprising result.

No need to reinvent the wheel

The new evaluation procedures for the state of Virginia consume 87 pages.  It is a marvelous program with teacher, administrator, student and parent input.  It covers virtually every contingency possible in the assessment of a teacher’s performance.  When read in its entirety it is an airtight document that should meet the needs of every educator.  It will give meaningful feedback that will assist teachers to improve.  Fairness and consistency will not be issues.  It will clearly delineate the poor and strong members of a faculty. 

I shared the document with a former colleague who was also on the committee.  After reading it she said:

“There’s an awful lot of good in this.  I only wish my evaluations had been done like the ones outlined here.  Even though I consistently received superior ratings, I can honestly say that I have never learned one thing from an evaluation that made me a better teacher.  The only time I gained anything like that was from just talking and watching other instructors.  I so wanted someone, especially at the start of my teaching career, to come into my room and help me become a better teacher.  This could have done that.”

Yes, those 87 pages describe a wonderful method for one of the most important activities in education. Ironically, the individual lamenting the shortcomings of her evaluations worked in a Virginia school district for 28 years. The coherent and clearly defined procedures described in that state’s plan never translated into any evaluation that ever took place in her classroom. 

Words and actions are not always the same

I spent 40 years working in the same district and concur with her comments. The problem, however, is not in the official evaluation program.  The actual reason so many teachers feel they are denied any benefit from the process is the manner in which it is implemented.  Despite all of the rhetoric about the importance of accurately assessing the performance of teachers, the implementation within the schools themselves does not indicate that it is a high priority. Principals and administrators do not devote the time or resources necessary to utilize the plan outlined on the Virginia website. 

The wrong people are evaluating

In many school systems the primary responsibility for evaluation rests on the Assistant Principal that supervises the department.  Often this is not the best choice. For most people in this position assessing teacher performance has to be low on their daily “to-do” list. The typical AP does not have the time or resources to solicit student, teacher and community input into the two dozen formal evaluations they have been assigned.  In addition, this particular individual may be ill-prepared to assess that diverse set of teachers. In forty years of evaluations I was never observed by an assistant principal who had taught high school math.  In some cases it was an individual who had never taught any high school classes.  Such limitations do not automatically preclude someone from being an excellent observer.  But we should be asking if administrators, most of whom are already overburdened, are the best choice for evaluating teachers?

A professional evaluation requires a professional evaluator

What school districts need to do is hire and train employees for the specific purpose of evaluation.  Their full-time job is the assessment of teachers in schools throughout the system.  Only teachers with an outstanding record of classroom success, a strong desire to utilize that skill to improve others and a willingness to devote their career to that task should be selected. The training program should be thorough and ongoing.  The assessment of the assessors must be as strenuous as the evaluations they will eventually be conducting. 

How would it work?

A team of these trained observers would conduct each teacher’s evaluation.  One would have taught in the subject area.  Another would be a “generalist” who will evaluate the individual in terms of their classroom skills. The lead evaluator would be responsible for acquiring input from the entire school community as described in those 87 pages.  Techniques such as videotaping formal observations could be employed.  This recording could be used both as a tool in the actual evaluation and as a learning device for the entire staff.  The benefits to the faculty of a film library featuring a collection of excellent examples of classroom teaching would be immense.  There is a reason why successful sport teams use such technology in a similar manner. 

By having these professional evaluators work in multiple schools, the process would become more consistent throughout the district. It would also be far less personal.  Being assessed by someone who works in the building and with whom one interacts on a regular basis does not always result in a comfortable relationship.  Likewise, the possibility of having this process performed multiple times over a period of years by the same individual may not ensure the best outcomes.  Additionally, there is a strong possibility that teachers would be more open and honest with someone whose only professional involvement is as an evaluator. 

What about the details?

Notably absent in this conversation are any specifics about the actual evaluation. How often should they occur? How many observations must be made?  What portion should be formal and what should be informal?  What is the termination policy?  These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered to make an evaluation effective.  Actually they have all been addressed in great detail in those 87 pages. Now it is up to school districts to realize the importance of this process and put in the appropriate time and commitment necessary for implementing teacher evaluations in an effective way.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:54 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Teaching is a tough, time consuming job.  I knew a high school English teacher who would periodically have to take a day of sick leave for the purpose of grading an overwhelming amount of student work.  With a pair of grocery bags crammed full of essays in hand, he would leave the building provisioned to spend the next day at home pouring over a huge pile of papers for hours.  This ritual would occur at least four times a year.

For most teachers at my former school, the concept of “contract” time was laughable.  Technically the workday began at 7:15 a.m. and ended at 2:45 p.m.  However, the faculty parking lot was always half full by 6:15 a.m. and anyone arriving after 7:00 was hard pressed to find a spot. Even when I left school as late as 5:00 p.m., dozens of cars were still there.  Suffice it to say, a high-school teaching schedule is a full-time job.  Anything that reduces the amount of time available to undertake that task robs individuals of the ability to perform at their maximum level.

With those factors in mind, Mel Riddile has raised a concern about the persistent practice of assigning teachers extra-duties.  He quotes the superintendent of a large school system who is trying to intervene on behalf of teachers who are being overwhelmed with an escalating series of tasks that detract from their primary job of educating.  This is a legitimate concern that continues to have a negative impact on the academic success of schools.

It is not a new problem

This unfortunate tug-of-war between administrators and teachers has been a perennial problem.  It has been the root cause of much of the tension that exists among the two groups.  From the teacher’s perspective there is a sense that the administrative team does not trust them to use non-class time appropriately.  In addition, many of the tasks assigned are viewed as not being part of their job description.  Finally, in this era of high accountability, most teachers feel there is not enough time to both teach effectively and perform other non-educational chores. 

One example of this conflict occurred when my former district expanded the school day from six to seven periods.   The additional class would afford students an opportunity to take four additional classes during their high school careers.  Though the school day was to be lengthened by about thirty minutes, the vast majority of teachers were comfortable with the longer work day.  They assumed they would continue to teach five classes, work with the same number of students for virtually the same amount of time.  The additional period would give the master schedule more flexibility and could offer an increased number of interesting and unique courses.  The expanded school day would be offset by a second planning period which would allow more opportunities for collaborative planning, preparation and grading. 

Unfortunately, the policy makers saw the new schedule differently.  In a move that clearly indicated that they felt teachers could not be trusted with this new “additional” time the “Individual Professional Responsibility” (IPR) was born.   The IPR was a requirement that teachers spend one of those “off” periods engaged in tasks assigned by the local administrative team.  These responsibilities included cafeteria duty, working in the attendance office and returning used library books to their proper place on the shelves.  For several years every teacher in the building would not only be required to perform such mundane tasks, they had to log in their time and give written explanations of precisely how they had spent their IPR time.  To the teachers the entire process conveyed a message that if unsupervised they would simply use non-class time to drink coffee and read the newspaper in lieu of academic pursuits.  Mercifully, thanks to the hard work of some enlightened principals this practice died out over time, although I am not sure it was ever officially terminated.  But the misguided perception that expanding a teacher’s job description has no impact on their classroom work still exists.

Replacing one bad idea with another

 While the IPR faded, there were plenty of other items to take up extra time.  Initiatives were being introduced that would reduce a teacher’s ability to focus on their students.  District programs to monitor student progress (e-Carte and Abacus) were mandated activities - even though they were inferior to the assessment tools already in use at the school.  The staff had a difficult choice.  They could either stop using approaches that had been proven effective or perform the same analysis twice to meet district requirements.  And, of course, all such programs came with lengthy training.  Poorly conceived staff development and unnecessary faculty meetings added to the problem.   What was most frustrating for the teachers was the total disconnect from the inordinate amount of time already being spent on important non-classroom activities such as parent conferences, faculty and department meetings, after school extra-curricular activities, evaluation discussions, recertification requirements, reviewing textbooks, etc.  There was scant recognition that there were already plenty of “extra” duties to fill in any excess time.

The next big thing

The most ominous current demand on teachers concerns remediation of students who are performing poorly on standardized tests.  Ironically, the same superintendent who wanted to ease the pressure on teachers has also requested that his state’s barrier exams be administered earlier in the year with the burden of remediating those who fail to be left to the teachers in an unspecified and unfunded manner.  It is a plan that sounds suspiciously like more extra duty.

It is time to reassess the components of a typical teacher workday.  From the view of both the teacher and administrative staffs the focus must be on finding ways to best utilize the time of every staff member to better serve the academic performance of the student body.  Finding ways to keep staff members occupied with duties that do not move toward that goal is unacceptable.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:58 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The academic goals of educational leaders are virtually identical.  They all want to create programs that will produce high school graduates who, as a result of a rigorous sequence of courses, will clearly and measurably exhibit mastery of all of the core subjects—English, Math, Science and Social Studies—in addition to being fluent in at least one foreign language, possessing an appreciation of the arts and maintaining a high level of physical fitness.   High school graduation rates would be near 100% and all students would be prepared for college level work. The objectives are the same; the debates revolve around the proper path to that ideal plan.

When idealism and reality collide

Jay Mathews has proposed a plan that he believes would increase rigor in schools.   In a recent Washington Post article “Why not honors courses for all?” he addresses a concern of some parents that their school district is moving away from the traditional three tracks—regular, honors, and college level—by eliminating honors classes.  Mr. Mathews’ solution is a different two-track approach:

“Instead of insisting on the old three tracks, tell the schools to keep the honors option and eliminate the basic course.”

It is important to note that Mr. Mathews is talking about classes in the eleventh and twelfth grades not entry level courses for freshmen.  On paper his arguments make some sense.  No educator would categorically reject increased rigor for students.  The better solution, however, is not the elimination of the basic or the honors classes but rather   making the current three options more appropriate.

Building a house of cards   

One of the fundamental problems with the current three-level approach is the ripple effect created by the oversimplification of the basic curriculum fostered by incessant pressure on teachers and administrators to eliminate poor grades.  To reduce the number of failing grades for unmotivated or poorly prepared students, many basic or regular classes in middle and high school have been made progressively easier.   This “dumbing down” of the curriculum does not go unnoticed by students, parents and teachers. Students who have limited academic skills are routinely enrolled in honors classes rather than regular classes. Once again the influx of under qualified students and the need to maintain high grades requires a lessening of the rigor of the honors classes.   The next step in this precarious sequence is the college-level courses.

Building a strong foundation

If one adheres to the principle that “given adequate time and attention, all children can learn”, a proposition that Mel Riddile and I have espoused at every opportunity, an approach in which all courses, by necessity, are taught at hyper-speed is unlikely to meet the needs of many students.  Student learning styles are almost as diverse as snowflakes and reducing options is a step in the wrong direction.   

While disagreeing with Mr. Mathews’ solution, I am equally at odds with those who take the opposite view.   They contend that when students struggle they tend to then drop out of school.  Using that as the prime consideration, it is argued that care must be taken not to frustrate anyone as they move through high school.  Any school system that is predicated on the desire to make sure that failure is nearly impossible is not going to result in a quality education.  As “Tiger Mom” author Amy Chua has said, building a culture of “inauthentic self-esteem” will not lead to academic improvement.

The better option is to create regular classes that are far more rigorous with higher expectations.  The same changes need to be instituted in honors and college level courses.   The next step would be to establish the proper placement of students and then push them to excel.  Offer students more time, more attention and more meaningful work while refusing to accept failure.  Support teams consisting of counselors, mentors and tutors must be formed to help guide students and parents through the difficult times.  Students can be allowed to fail a specific class; they cannot be allowed to fail to acquire an education.  The message has to be loud and clear.  Dropping out of high school is vocational suicide.

A key component of this approach would be a clear commitment that these three tracks do not constitute “tracking.”  There must be free flowing movement for students at all times.  When students strengthen their academic skills to a point where a regular class is no longer challenging they should be moved to the corresponding honors course.  This fluidity should be true in either direction and at any level.

If the basic foundation of the educational structure is strong, the rest of the construction will be equally effective.  This is a message that must be sent early and often throughout the entire school community. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:33 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

It would seem logical that a local community college would be an excellent source to evaluate the quality of the education high school students were receiving.  Kristen Amundson, a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates and current communications manager for Education Sector, relayed some chilling data concerning the shortcomings of Virginia schools in a recent article in the Washington Post.  According to Ms. Amundson:

“At NVCC (Northern Virginia Community College) 2,913 of the 4,719 freshmen (62 percent) require remediation in one or more subjects. In other Virginia community colleges, as many as 80 percent of students arrive on campus needing at least one remedial class.”

Over the years Northern Virginia Community College has received national respect for the success of its students.  As a part of the Virginia Consortium students who earn grades of “A” or “B” in courses at the school can transfer those credits to any four-year state university.  Many talented individuals use two years at NVCC as a low-cost alternative for the first half of their college degree which they can complete at prestigious schools such as the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech. 

A disturbing imbalance

The fall schedule for NVCC reveals a major problem.  At the Alexandria campus there are 32 sections of Math I.  This is a non-college credit class that is designed as a remedial course that covers topics that should have been learned in high school.  Meanwhile Math 151, the freshman entry-level math course requiring a prerequisite of Algebra 2 and Geometry has a total of 11 sections.

The big lie

The state of Virginia thinks so highly of its Standards of Learning (SOL) end of course exams that the governor opted out of the Department of Education “Raise to the Top” competition because he believed the state’s standards far exceeded those of the federal government.  When one looks at the graduation requirements for the state, that contention seems valid.  To earn a diploma in the state students must pass three math courses at or above the level of Algebra 1.  In addition, they must pass at least one math SOL and in most cases two in order to “verify” those credits. 

On paper these requirements would appear to preclude any of the problems being encountered by NVCC.  The prerequisites for Math 151 are basically identical to those of a Virginia diploma.  And yet to meet the needs of the incoming freshmen, almost all of whom are products of Virginia high schools, there are three times as many remedial math courses as college-level.  The answer may be in how the state defines “mastery”. 

In May, 2011 in order to “pass” the Algebra 1 SOL exam a student must correctly answer 23 of 50 multiple-choice questions.  While on the surface that requirement might seem low (it equals to a 46% score) the reality is much worse.  On average random guessing on four-option multiple-choice questions will result in correct answers one-fourth of the time. Thus, a student can earn a passing grade by knowing the correct answer for 15 of the 50 questions (30%) and then by guessing on the remaining 35 questions net 8 or 9 more which will then total at least the required 23.  Though this level of knowledge could hardly be considered “mastery”, it does receive the label “passing”.  Even more disturbing is the fact that a few years ago that required pass number had been 26.   Is it really that surprising that a student with these credentials is struggling as a college freshman?

It is time to demand more

Sadly, the Governor is correct.  The state of Virginia does have comparatively high standards.  The problem is they are clearly not nearly high enough.  Instead students are receiving a potentially dangerous mixed message. They are pushed to go faster by taking Algebra 1 in middle school and abolishing all non-honors courses.  When too many begin to falter the requirements for defining “success” are lowered. The result is a transcript full of wonderful sounding classes and a plethora of graduates with woefully inadequate academic skills. 

It is time to stop looking for semantic shortcuts and begin the difficult process of demanding more.  The mere act of placing wallpaper over the cracks in our academic walls is not enough. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:25 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Evaluations that have value

Academic success has been directly linked to the quality of a school’s teaching and administrative staffs.  Ideas are constantly being presented for improving educational personnel.  But singular approaches such as merit pay, improved evaluations, and easier termination policies will not individually accomplish that goal.  What is needed is a multi-faceted program that will address all of the shortcomings in the current system. Previously, eight fundamental areas were presented that need to be addressed in order for districts to be able to hire, improve and retain the most talented educators.    

This is the fourth in a series of articles that will detail the steps needed to implement those improvements.  In earlier posts hiring practices and effective interviewing techniques have been discussed. Part 4 will focus on the evaluation process.

Changing more than the format

Nearly every proposal for improving teacher evaluation revolves around the use of data particularly standardized tests.  While that is an important item for consideration, the most pressing reform may well involve redefining who is best qualified to actually perform those evaluations.  The first step in true evaluation reform should be to create a new set of individuals who are responsible for this portion of the process. 

Not the best choice for the job

In most school districts the primary responsibility for this process falls to the local administrative team and there are many assistant principals who are well equipped to review the work of a staff member.  But even though the vast majority undertake this time-consuming task with a high level of commitment, they have an overwhelming array of day-to-day responsibilities. For example, the AP who evaluated the math teachers at my former school was tasked with the discipline of more than three hundred freshmen, administering (and evaluating) three different departments, implementing the testing plan for state barrier exams, hall duty between change of classes, supervising several extra-curricular and athletic events and interviewing candidates for vacancies.  In addition there were the almost daily emergencies that always arise in a high school.  A majority of administrators have similar job descriptions.  It is not surprising to find the time to evaluate teachers falling toward the bottom of this lengthy “to-do” list. 

Creating professional evaluators

A better option for school districts is to train a group of master teachers to become full-time, system-wide professional evaluators.  Such individuals would be significantly better equipped to accurately assess the skill of an instructor than administrators who in all likelihood were not hired primarily for their evaluation skills.  The money required for forming such a cadre could be offset by a reduction in administrative staff and an improved evaluation process.

An even more important argument for this innovation revolves around fairness and consistency.  School-based evaluators cannot help but be somewhat biased by their daily interaction with the staff.  Within a building there is an intuitive sense of which individuals perform well and which perform poorly in the classroom.  These reputations are rarely based on quantitative data; they are the result of comments by students, parents, faculty and other subjective experiences.  Minimally these unsubstantiated ideas can influence the amount of effort spent on an evaluation.  If pressed for time, an argument could be made to shorten the observation of a teacher who is widely “recognized” as being outstanding.  Conversely, negative sentiments from the school community can result in closer scrutiny of less well respected educators.  In either case a measure of fairness is compromised. 

A team of district-based evaluators would eliminate this problem and would also create consistency throughout the system.  The evaluations at school A could be compared with confidence to those at school B.  A number of issues ranging from merit pay, transfers and the termination of contracts could be resolved more reliably.      

What would the process contain?

Here is one hypothetical fix for the ineffective and unproductive teacher evaluations that are sadly typical.  Three professionals would form a teacher’s evaluation team.  One (generalist) would be a highly trained observer who is thoroughly versed in the fundamentals of good teaching.  Another (curriculum specialist) would have similar training but would have taught in the subject field being observed.  The third would be an assistant principal at the school. The generalists and curriculum specialists would be required to have at least ten years of successful teaching experience in addition to extensive training in observing and interpreting classroom activities.  Successful retired teachers could be an outstanding and economical talent pool for these positions. 

The actual evaluation process would be intense.  At least five formal observations would be required.  The generalist and specialist would have two announced and two unannounced.  Additional observations can be done when necessary or desired.  A local assistant principal would perform one unannounced visit.  This experience would familiarize the AP with the teacher being evaluated.  The results of this observation would not be included in the final document but should allow the administrator to better understand and interpret the input from the other team members.  All observations would encompass an entire class period.  The two announced would be videotaped which would become a central component in post-observation conferences.  The videos would also be available to the other members of the team.  When appropriate, standardized test scores and other pertinent data would be included in the overall assessment.  Evaluators will, of course, be carefully trained in analyzing such data and how to utilize it in a fair, accurate manner.  At the end of the process, the three observers would meet and create the overall rating that would then be shared with the teacher.   The primary source of the final conclusions would be the two observers; the role of the AP would be to coordinate the process and provide further input if needed.

The next steps

The purpose of an evaluation should be to both determine the quality of one’s performance and to construct approaches to improve and enhance skills.  Ultimately it should also be a tool in determining pay, advancement and termination.  Those will be the focus of the next part of this series.  

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:09 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Head Blogger's Note: The Teacher Leader references the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) Testing Program that employs a rigorous high school assessment system of eleven end-of-course exams, which act as barriers to graduation and are used to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Midway through the teacher evaluation portion of the “Building the Best Educational Staff” series, I came to a startling realization.  It had become obvious that one issue under discussion required separate attention—the use of standardized test scores in the high school evaluation process.

It sounds so good on paper

The hottest ticket in all new evaluation plans is the inclusion of these statistics. Everyone is talking about the need for this component.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan brings it up at every opportunity and Bill Gates has spent millions of his own dollars to research the issue.   Even I have written in favor of it. In the abstract it is such a great idea. These tests are quantitative measures of student achievement that can allow a fair comparison of teacher performances.  It has it all—clarity, accuracy and ease of implementation. There is, however, one serious drawback.  It cannot work.

There are inherent problems

There is one aspect of these arguments that is continually overlooked—the actual percentage of students in high school who take these standardized exams.  Though regulations vary from state to state, using Virginia as an example, the reality is that most teachers do not have state or district tests to evaluate their students’ work.  As the Coordinator of Curriculum at my school one of my responsibilities was to formulate a testing schedule for the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) exams.  What I discovered as I worked to make the most equitable plan possible was that more than two-thirds of all classes taught in the building were not being tested.    How can the bedrock of an evaluation system be built on a formula that is appropriate for only 33% of the classes?  And this is not a question of core vs. electives.  In Virginia, no Physics classes are tested.  Likewise, 9th, 10th and 12th grade English, pre-calculus, United States Government and all foreign languages are excluded.  Will there be a different evaluation for Biology and Physics teachers?    If a person has a schedule that includes both World History I and Government classes will a hybrid evaluation be necessary?

In an attempt to make the use of test scores more accurate, many systems are working on plans that will measure progress from year to year rather than in a single “snapshot” of a group of results.  While that may work when measuring Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 students, problems quickly arise in science and social studies.  What is the precise impact of the work in Earth Science on performance in Biology or Chemistry?   How can one compare World History 2 to United States History?

Good questions, shaky answers

When the use of test scores in teacher evaluations is given close inspection the aforementioned concerns quickly become apparent.   One example of evaluation idealism colliding with actual reality was presented recently in the Washington Post. The paper had a question and answer session with Jason Kamras chief of human capital for Washington D.C. Public Schools.  Mr. Kamras is the principal architect of the two year old IMPACT teacher evaluation system.  This plan uses test score input as 50% of a teacher’s evaluation.  Unfortunately, Mr. Kamras’s responses to many of the questions were not inspiring.

When asked why so few teachers were being evaluated with the “value-added” test system he responded:

“You know the grades we test [on the DC CAS, 3 through 8 and 10]. You have to knock off third grade because we don’t test second grade, so you have no benchmark. You have to knock out 10th grade because we don’t test in ninth grade, although that’s changing. You always have some [teachers] drop out because they didn’t have enough kids.”

The follow up question was obvious.  What can be done about this shortcoming?  The response concerning alternative evaluations for non-testing teachers was equally troubling and unclear.

“We looked at portfolios and lots of other things. And then you’ve got to push a little bit. How do you do portfolios? Everybody has a different idea of what a portfolio is…Actually it’s really hard to demonstrate growth clearly and quantitatively…When we looked at it in depth, what we came to was that the operational burden to do this well was simply probably beyond the capacity of the school system at this point.”

It is not reassuring to have an evaluation program built on proposals that include “lots of other things.” 

What does it all mean?

The use of student standardized test scores as a segment of teacher evaluations can be valuable if used properly.  It should not be cast aside or ignored as inherently unfair or inaccurate.  But what its proponents must keep in perspective is the limited scope of these data.  It is not a magic formula for determining all teacher success. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:25 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Developing an Effective Interview Process

Academic success has been directly linked to the quality of a school’s teaching and administrative staffs.  Prescriptions are continually being proposed to improve educational personnel.  These plans have included merit pay, improved evaluations, and easier termination policies among others.  But this goal is too complex to be accomplished with singular solutions.  What is required is a multi-faceted program that will address a variety of shortcomings in the current hiring system.  Previously, I have compiled eight fundamental areas that need to be reassessed in order for districts to be able to hire, improve and retain the most talented educators. 

This is the third in a series of articles that will detail the steps needed to implement those improvements.  This post will focus on the interviewing process.

Rule 1:  The interview begins with the resume

One of the most important components to the interview process begins before any face-to-face meetings occur.  Choosing the best interview candidates from among dozens of resumes can be difficult.  No single piece of paper can tell the complete story of an applicant’s strengths or weaknesses.  But there are some items that deserve extra attention. 

What is the candidate’s academic background and teaching experience?

Only applicants with a strong academic background in the subject area should be given serious consideration.  While a major in the field would be preferable, the minimum requirement would be a significant number of successfully completed courses in the curriculum.  In many states the requirements for certification are unrealistically low.  For that reason there should be a thorough examination of the candidate’s GPA particularly in the subject area.  If this information is not contained on the resume, a transcript should be requested.   This extra step can reveal a great deal about a prospective teacher.  For example, one individual who applied for a Chemistry position at my former school had a reasonably good overall GPA.  However, a detailed look at the candidate’s transcript revealed that every course in Chemistry was “C” or lower including a few that had to be repeated.   This information is not trivial.

Previous employment, summer jobs, and areas of interest should also be carefully examined.  Matching an educator to a school is a subtle process.  Different student bodies require different strengths.  Evaluate prior experiences in terms of preparing the candidate for the school’s particular needs.  After determining the top choices the interviewing process should begin.

Rule 2:  Have the right people doing the interview

Teacher interviews should be conducted by the two individuals most directly involved in the development of new staff—the department chair and the supervising assistant principal.  If one of the two does not attend an interview no hiring should take place until both have had an opportunity to talk with the candidate.  Offering a position should require a 2-0 “vote”.  

The inclusion of the chair is particularly important.  No one understands the exact needs of a department as well as a person who works with this group every day.  In addition having a teacher in the process gives the applicant an opportunity to ask specific questions concerning working at that particular school.  While an AP has first-hand knowledge of the learning environment, it is not the equivalent to that of a full-time teacher.  Moreover, if the department chairs have a voice in the hiring, they will also have ownership and accountability.  It is now incumbent on them to make this hire work.  And finally having both the AP and department chair conducting the interviews makes the process more consistent, allows them to develop a coordinated working relationship and gives this somewhat subjective decision making process more objectivity.   

Rule 3:  Everyone should be asking questions

An effective interview is one that allows information to flow in two directions.  As the interviewers assess the qualifications of a candidate through a series of questions, the applicant should be seeking information about the makeup of the student body, an overview of the department personnel and educational philosophy and administrative support and expectations.  This understanding of the educational environment within the building is critical.  Hiring the right teacher is not always about hiring the most talented one.  Good teachers and successful schools are not automatically a perfect fit.  I have known many underperforming teachers who have found great success after transferring to a new location.  People often underestimate the importance of personal chemistry in teaching success. 

Rule 4:  Ask questions that result in meaningful answers

The inquiries posed during an interview should elicit introspection of one’s beliefs about education.  The goal should be to determine the applicant’s beliefs regarding why some students fail to achieve, how to reach different learning styles within a classroom, the most productive student/teacher relationship, and classroom management approaches.  Some of my personal favorites include:

• Within your curriculum what is your favorite topic?  How would you share that enthusiasm with your students?
• Next October when I visit your class, what facet of the lesson I observe will be the most impressive?
• During that visit what will be the most notable aspect of the classroom environment?
• What teaching issues would most likely require you to ask for advice from your colleagues?

A series of such questions should be created that will give true insights into the philosophies and beliefs of the candidate and also express the academic direction of the school.

Rule 5:  The questions are only the beginning

The give and take of the interview should be only a portion of the process in determining who is offered a position.  A comprehensive interview would include the following:

• Writing sample.  The most basic skill required of a successful educator is the ability to communicate.  This talent must exist both verbally and in writing.  Having applicants express their views in words can reveal additional information not necessarily apparent in a question and answer setting.  Sample questions could include “What motivates you to be an educator?”, “What was the primary reason you applied to this particular school?” “Think of your favorite teacher.  What made this person so special to you?”  A written answer to any of these inquiries could give some extremely important insights.
• Teach a lesson.  Tell the applicant in advance that they will be asked to teach a fifteen minute portion of a lesson they have done in the past.  They should be prepared with handouts, power points, board work, etc.  If they are uncomfortable with this request, what does that say about their future in front of a classroom of students?
• Tour the school and visit classrooms.  Remember this is a two-way interview.  Give them a genuine feel for the educational environment.  An interviewer can gather insights about a candidate by observing their reaction to a classroom visit. After one of my interviews a teacher asked me when the students would be dismissed.  She then situated herself in the main office and watched the students as they left the building.  She later told me that the manner in which they conducted themselves and their interaction with adults convinced her that she wanted to be at this school. 
• Make a lunch date.  Prior to offering a position, a highly-rated candidate should be invited to have lunch with the department during a school day.  This setting provides a wonderful opportunity for interaction with potential future colleagues and often served as the final stage in the entire process. 

Rule 6:  Aggressively contact references and previous employers

Some of the worst information acquired during the interviewing process is obtained from references.  Too many people are loath to give honest appraisals or worse they want to get rid of a problem teacher.  Consequently interviewers need to ask pointed questions when contacting these individuals.  The importance of their input needs to be clearly stated and emphasis be given to the need for candor.  Books could be written about the harm caused by misleading references.   Consequently, it is a process that must be undertaken carefully and with caution.

Rule 7:  Use your new hires as a resource

Your new hires can help in improving the interviewing process.  I always asked them why they chose to accept our offer and how our process compared to others.  These conversations revealed some important insights that were used to strengthen our work in the future.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:17 PM | Permalink

Step 1:  Recognition that hiring is critical to academic performance.

The success of a school system correlates directly to the quality of the educational staff it employs.  Improving student achievement requires finding exceptional individuals who can fill those positions.  In a previous post I listed the eight priorities that were essential for hiring, improving and retaining the most talented educators.  This article is the first in a series that will detail the steps that need to be taken in order to ensure that all schools have outstanding personnel.

It is the implementation not the procedure

There is no question that every school district wants to secure the best talent possible.  The vast majority of systems have excellent hiring plans in place that are designed to attract the finest teachers available.  Unfortunately, that process can often become compromised as other concerns are given higher priority.  Some districts do not realize or understand the level of resolve necessary in terms of time and resources to hire the best and the brightest.

Rule 1:  Districts must recognize that the acquisition of new staff is critical.  Significant resources must be dedicated to recruiting top candidates.  These efforts must include input and participation by classroom teachers and school administrators. 

Recruit effectively at the district level

One of the biggest obstacles in acquiring new teachers in my school district was the practice of “early hires”.  Candidates in high-need areas would be interviewed by the personnel office and given guaranteed contracts.  The schools would then have to hire exclusively from that pool until it was exhausted.  In principle it was a sound idea—the district would recruit top-level individuals and pass them on to the schools.  Unfortunately, the expectations did not match the reality.  The selection process was highly erratic and I found myself interviewing people I would have never considered for a position.  Other department chairs would report being equally mystified by selections made in their subject areas.

Rule 2:  When making hiring decisions on early applicants, districts should approach the task in the same way that individual schools do when interviewing prospective candidates.  The process should include members of school staffs and solicit feedback each year on the effectiveness of the selections and suggestions for improvement.  

They are not widgets

Adding to the hiring problem is the misperception held by some that teaching staffs are a collection of interchangeable parts that can be added and subtracted with little effect.  The reality is very different.  A school’s staff is a complex team, which must be assembled while considering multiple variables.  Good teamwork is a critical component at numerous levels.  Departments must function efficiently as students move through the curriculum.  Likewise, there needs to be effective coordination and cooperation between different departments.  The teaching and administrative staffs must share similar aspirations for the academic program.  And of course the personnel of a school must be fine-tuned to best meet the specific needs of the student body.  I can recall two talented teachers, one in math and the other in science, who struggled for a year at my school. They transferred to new locations with very different student populations and had excellent careers. The art of building a successful staff can be that intricate.

Rule 3:  Creating an effective educational staff requires careful consideration of all aspects of a school’s educational environment. 

Their loss was our gain

I firmly believe that hiring teachers was my most important responsibility.  Each of those decisions had potentially long-term positive or negative impacts that could span years.  Since more than two dozen high schools in my district were choosing from a small pool of applicants, I approached the process as an intense form of competition. In a manner similar to college athletic recruiting or drafting in professional sports, the procedure consisted of carefully studying applications to locate the best candidates, an extensive interviewing process to narrow the focus and then an aggressive recruiting campaign to convince them to become a part of our math team.  I was also aware of the fact that not all of those other schools were as concerned with the endeavor.  Here are two such instances that resulted from such indifference.

Great teachers can apply any time

The letter arrived in early February.  It presented the story of a very interesting individual.  He had grown up in the area before attending the University of Florida where he received a degree in mathematics.  After graduating he served as a marine, then a Peace Corps volunteer and finally as a teacher in a poor school district in Los Angeles. His request was simple—since he would be in town later in the month he would like to have an interview.  The letter was sent to all twenty-four high schools in the district.  Only one school agreed to his request.  He related during his interview that few schools responded and those that did told him “…they don’t worry about hiring until May or June so come back then.”  It was their loss.  In June when he accepted a position at our school he told me that since we took the time in the “off-season” to speak with him he was convinced we were a good fit for his teaching.  His tenure has passed the 15-year mark and his work has been stellar.

Rule 4:  Interviewing teachers is not a seasonal activity.  It cannot be done at the sole convenience of the interviewer.

Professionals deserve professional treatment

His goal was to begin a second career in high school education after retiring as a Colonel in the U.S. Army. During his interview, I quickly realized he would be an excellent fit for our department.  He had a military bearing but an easygoing manner, two ingredients that bode well for good classroom management.  He expressed an eagerness to learn how to improve at his craft and a willingness to teach any classes that were available.  Within a week an offer was made, but he told me that he had one more interview before he could make a decision.  Two days later he accepted our job.  The next time I saw him I asked what made the difference.  “Now don’t get me wrong.  I really liked your program and philosophy but my first choice was to teach at another school.  It is where my daughter attends, it is right near the house and it just seemed like the best place for me.  But when I went there for my interview the math chair was out of the building and no assistant principals were available. So I was asked a few questions by the head of the English department.  The next day they offered me a job. But when I thought about it, I knew that proximity to my house was not nearly enough to convince me to accept the other school’s offer. So, here I am.”  He became precisely the teacher I expected based on his interview.  He had a wonderful rapport with the students, was a positive influence in the department and a great team player.

Rule 5:  The hiring process can say as much about the school as it does about the candidate. 

The message is clear—the attitude demonstrated in acquiring staffing says as much about a school and a district as it does about the applicant.  An effective hiring process is multi-faceted, year round activity.   The overall plan must be focused, detailed and productive. Anything is less will not produce the desired results—the best teaching staff possible.

Next:  Creating an effective interview

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:00 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

There is no easy fix

In order to retain its status as a global leader the United States must create a world-class educational system.  To that end, numerous efforts are being made to find the correct formula.  Charter schools advocate longer hours and teacher freedom; a New York City school offers starting salaries of $125,000; Bill Gates has spent millions to study teacher evaluation and policy makers stress the need for accountability by using standardized tests.  Recently Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell offered a new merit pay program designed to assist under-performing schools in finding good staffing.  A variety of other incentive plans have been proposed with the intent of attracting top-level talent. While these and other ideas have varying degrees of merit, individually they are insufficient.   

There is no simple solution

Building a winning team whether on the athletic field or in the classroom requires many ingredients.  Ask successful coaches for their winning secrets and their response will be complex.  They cannot point to one particular element that consistently results in a championship team.  Likewise, no one-dimensional approach can produce outstanding educators in every classroom.  Looking for a “quick-fix” only delays the formulation of the sweeping set of policies required to populate every school with an excellent staff. 

It is a complex problem

In a recent post Mel Riddile has made a strong case that money alone will not create great teachers.   Based on his thoughts and my own educational experiences I believe that the following seven issues must be addressed to guarantee excellence in teaching staffs:

1. A commitment to hiring policies that result in offering job opportunities to the most effective candidates.
2. Establishing an evaluation program that results in a fair, consistent analysis of teacher performance and both improves effectiveness while identifying underperforming staff members.
3. Formulating a policy for removing teachers in an equitable but efficient manner.
4. Abolishing “last hired-first fired”.
5. Creating meaningful staff development programs which have proven quantitative evidence of success in the classroom. 
6. Competitive salaries with common sense rewards for outstanding work that can be measured in a clear and accurate way.
7. Create leadership positions for teachers that will give them consequential input into educational policy.
8. Ensure that all schools, especially those with challenging student bodies, have outstanding staffs.

More philosophical than fiscal

Over the next few weeks I will address these eight issues and present a comprehensive approach for hiring, improving and retaining outstanding educational staffs.  At a time of limited budgets, an important aspect of this plan is the low cost.   The major expenditures are in time and commitment, not dollars.

Next:  Hiring policies and strategies that find great talent

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:41 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell is the latest political leader to create a framework for funding merit pay for teachers.  In this plan the state would allot $3 million to selected schools throughout the Commonwealth.  The goal is to populate underachieving schools with outstanding educators.  However, despite the expectation of extremely tight budgets in the coming year, a number of districts intend to reject this offer.  This negative reception demonstrates the difficulty in finding the best approach to utilizing pay incentives to improve student performance.

The latest attempt

In a published statement Gov. McDonnell said, “The funding available for performance pay represents an opportunity to provide meaningful incentives and rewards for exemplary teachers in a significant number of Virginia schools.”

The program targets 169 schools throughout the state which have been designated as “hard to staff”.   To receive the funding districts would have to implement a merit-pay plan based on a new teacher evaluation system created by state officials which emphasizes student performance on end-of-course standardized tests. 

Not surprisingly teacher unions oppose the effort.  Kitty Boitnott, president of the Virginia Education Association responded, “Paying teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools is one thing, but it’s totally different to allocate pay based on how students do on an SOL (Virginia’s standardized exam) on a given day in a given year.”  A larger concern has been the specific schools designated for the program.  Both Arlington and Loudon County spokespersons have expressed serious disagreement with these choices.  “They’ve listed five of our schools, and none of them are difficult to staff,” said Wayde Byard, a spokesman for the Loudoun County school system.  Meanwhile Linda Erdos of Arlington County noted, “We’re not really sure how these schools got on the list rather than others.”  She added that schools that would appear to be more appropriate were omitted.  Many of the ones chosen by the state were considered successful by local officials. 

Use money to reward not to motivate

There is little doubt that in order to improve the schools in Virginia and elsewhere the key component is hiring and retaining the best teachers to work with the most challenging students.  But the method being suggested by Virginia appears misguided.   The key to merit pay is establishing a plan that will actually create better teaching staffs.  Viewing a bonus as an incentive for a teacher to work more effectively demonstrates a lack of understanding of the forces that drive the most successful classroom instructors.  Great teachers are not primarily motivated by finances; their greatest satisfaction results from assisting students to attain academic success.  Thus, the proper timing for monetary rewards should be given after educators have demonstrated their excellence in the classroom.

Beginning the process by targeting the most unsuccessful schools may be a waste of limited funds as well.  A better approach to the problems that Virginia is trying to remedy would be to focus on the schools that are outperforming expectations.  My former school had every possible excuse to fail.  It had the highest free and reduced lunch rate in the district as well as the largest ELL population and the most mobility.  Despite these demographic disadvantages, based on standardized tests, it outperformed 50% of the more affluent schools in the system.  Using this as a model, perhaps a better use of financial rewards would be to offer them to teachers and administrators who have proven their skills in similar situations in return for moving to less successful schools.  However, it is critical that such personnel shifts also be accompanied by a mandate that these individuals are given significant influence in the policies and practices in their new schools.  This combination of monetary incentives and the ability to have meaningful input in creating a positive learning environment would serve as a powerful lure for outstanding educators.   These are the individuals who should be the focus of any merit pay initiative.

There may be a better way

Another district in Virginia is proceeding with its own plan.  Beginning in 2011-2012 Prince William County will introduce an $11.1 million merit pay program.  While it still targets the poorest schools, it does offer an interesting twist—the awards are based on the overall performance of schools, not individual teachers.   Such an approach would create more of a team spirit within a faculty as bonuses would be determined by the entire student body rather than each individual teacher.  

However, I believe one additional step could be taken to make the process even more positive.  I have previously discussed the concept of “merit pay” for overachieving schools.

“If a school’s faculty is among the top scorers in the district, factoring in all the variables about the various schools in the system, then the school is given a reward.  It could be in the form of extra staffing (lower class sizes), better resources, or improved technology in addition to the implicit recognition.  This system would not be designed to punish affluent schools.  As demonstrated in an earlier piece (Time to Turn Talk into Action) a relatively simple mathematical equation can be constructed that will acknowledge success at all types of schools.

Recognition of ‘merit’ whether in actual dollars or in the clear and concrete knowledge that their talents are both documented and appreciated is critical to the morale and self-confidence of our best educators.  By incorporating a quantitative, consistent evaluation with financial rewards for outstanding teachers and schools, such an outcome is possible.” 

It may not be perfect but it could be a start.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:52 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In an essay published in the Outlook section of the Washington Post, John Sener has decided that by successfully making 18 of 20 free throws in a gymnasium he has, using the same criteria used by analysts of standardized testing, successfully proven that he is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.  Using similar logic he dismisses the poor performance of American students on the PISA test as irrelevant.   

When in doubt, ridicule

 When my former school posted outstanding scores in the state’s standardized tests I was surprised by the number of questions other educational leaders raised about our “ethics”.  Mel Riddile would explain to me that when you have poor outcomes you have two options—work harder and smarter or find a way to bring the competition down.  Unfortunately, the latter approach appears to be the one favored by Mr. Sener.

His argument is that standardized tests in general and the PISA international test in specific are inaccurate indicators of the quality of a country’s educational system.  He begins with sarcasm and then drifts into the surreal.

“Once you truly understand the awesome power of test scores, you will embrace them, as I have done — especially after realizing how standardized testing proves that I am a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

“Don’t laugh; I have the test results. I read something in a blog somewhere about how MJ recently made 16 out of 20 free throws in a friendly shooting contest. Pretty good, but I thought I could do better. So I went to my local gym and practiced and practiced until I achieved my aim: 18 out of 20 free throws! I’ll send you the video, if you like. (Or you could do what most people do with PISA scores and simply take my word for it.)”

Making the basket; missing the point

Based on his free-throw shooting (real or otherwise) Mr. Sener reaches several conclusions about the PISA test scores in the United States.

“You may argue that it’s not a fair comparison, but that’s what so great about this — simply use the same rules we apply to judging PISA scores, and it’s perfectly fair.  So what if it’s not a head-to-head competition? PISA’s not a head-to-head competition. The students take the tests at different times in different places under different conditions. Heck, they take the reading test in different languages.”   

His second explanation of the poor performance of U.S. students is their lack of interest.

“…what makes you think that American students take PISA seriously? When I tested my teenage son’s knowledge of the PISA exam, he just looked at me quizzically, since he’d never heard of it…Do you really believe that every student who takes the PISA has the same amount of practice?"  

To assess for yourself whether increased practice would affect the outcome of US students’ scores on the PISA tests, go to http://pisa-sq.acer.edu.au/ .

Not all air balls

Mixed into the misguided basketball analogies Mr. Sener does make some excellent points which should be emphasized.

“Standardized tests don’t measure most skills, yet opinion leaders and policymakers constantly tell us how America’s education is going down the toilet based on those scores...There is no place in standardized tests for creativity...You would be wise to ask these questions, even though standardized tests don’t care about curiosity, either.”

Ignored problems do not go away

There is no question that standardized testing does not answer all of the questions of how to measure learning and good teaching.  I have long argued that the Standards of Learning (SOL) exams given in my state (VA) did not indicate mastery of a subject and the method of administering the tests was poor.  But I also knew that though imperfect this new accountability was a step in the right direction.  Prior to such tests there were virtually no quantitative measures of the relative performances of students from classroom to classroom, school to school or district to district.  These results clearly indicated discernible patterns that, if used correctly, could be of great value. 

While this standardization did not equate to the level of precision that would be optimal, it did offer critical insights into the quality of teaching.  In every school the staff forms subjective conclusions as to which teachers are effective and those that are not.  During the ten years I observed SOL testing (VA) the results of these exams closely matched these informal evaluations.  Based on substantial data, the students of certain teachers routinely outperformed others.  While such statistics can and were misused, they did provide a limited amount of quantitative proof of student comprehension, weaknesses and the quality of the work of their instructors.

These outcomes were not enough.  The testing methods need to be improved to better reflect the actual knowledge acquisition.  They must demonstrate a legitimate understanding of a wide range of material.  This process is still in its infancy and far from a finished product.  The potential for improvement is present if the willingness to keep an open mind is maintained.

But simply ignoring any measurement that indicates a serious problem in American education is reckless.  A country where more than three of every ten students drop out of high school and only 30% attain a college degree is hardly in a position to dismiss a poor global performance with sarcasm and ridicule. 

Note: At the high school level, Virginia administers eleven end-of-course (EOC) exams, which are used both as barriers to graduation and to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP). Only a few states use EOC exams for accountability purposes and as barriers to graduation.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:11 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In previous blogs I have written about the financial and rhetorical issues surrounding the teachers in Wisconsin.  Unfortunately, too little has been written about the performance of those individuals in the classroom.  At a time when high school graduation rates in the United States are at alarmingly low levels, how well are those beleaguered educators in the Badger state performing?

Getting their money’s worth

Based on data compiled in 2008, the nationwide high school graduation rate was 70.1% which translates into only seven of every ten students earning a diploma. In that same year in Wisconsin the rate of success was 85.57%.  Not only was that more than 15% higher than the U.S. average, it was the second highest in the country trailing only Vermont which had a score of 86.63%. Meanwhile, in 2008 the average teacher in Wisconsin ranked 24thin the country in terms of earnings. There is little doubt that the teachers in that state were overachievers. 

Some mathematical expectations

So how much “bang for the buck” are the taxpayers of Wisconsin receiving from their teachers?  In 2008 the national average for teacher salaries was slightly more than $52,000 and the graduation rate was 70%. These numbers would indicate that for every $1,000 in salary the graduation rate is 1.34 (70 divided by 52). In Wisconsin the salary compared to graduation is 1.66 (85 divided by 51). Comparing those two outcomes indicates that the graduation rates in Wisconsin exceeds the national average per dollar by 31% (1.66 – 1.34, then divide by 1.34). In the context of this metric these educators are quite a bargain. 

There are other indicators of their dollar value. When comparing average teacher salaries to the median income in their state, the teachers in Wisconsin earned 89%.  That percentage placed them 28th in comparison to the other 49 states. 

Where is the controversy?

During the very public debate over the fate of teachers and their unions in Wisconsin, much was made of the avarice and selfishness of these educators. And yet the latest round of budget cuts in Wisconsin will result in their salaries being reduced by about 8%. Could it be that the targeted unions are not nearly as good at negotiating as the public is being told?  And are the best interests of the highly successful students in Wisconsin being served?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:31 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent article in the Washington Post, Peter Whoriskey discussed the increased push to make Algebra II a requirement for a high school diploma.  Mr. Whoriskey writes, “Of all of the classes offered in high school, Algebra II is the leading predictor of college and work success, according to research that has launched a growing national movement to require it of graduates. In recent years, 20 states and the District have moved to raise graduation requirements to include Algebra II, and its complexities are being demanded of more and more students.”

There are ample reasons to look to methods to improve the success of American students in acquiring a college degree.  The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development has found that the workforce in the United States is trailing other countries in the percentage of young workers who possess a university education. 

Don’t believe every statistic

The causality between success in Algebra II and college is questionable.  As the sale of ice cream cones in New York City rises, the murder rate in that community escalates as well. While it would be intriguing to try to find a correlation between frozen snacks and homicides, the reality is that the two facts are unrelated.  What is true is that as the temperatures rise and interpersonal contact increases, violent crime grows as do the sale of cold, refreshing products.  Tying college success to passing Algebra II is an equally risky comparison.  In a country that pushes unprecedented numbers of eighth-graders to take Algebra I (about 50%) anyone who has not passed Algebra I, Geometry and Algebra II by the end of grade 12 has more than likely encountered some serious educational setbacks. The fact that such students do not perform well in college has far less to do with their math skills than their overall academic prowess.  In the five-year span from 8^th to 12^th grade, any individual who can only pass one or two classes at or above the level of Algebra I is an unlikely candidate for success in higher education.  There is little doubt that parallel correlations could be found between students who pass three lab sciences or three years of a foreign language and their performance in college.

The more math the better

Discounting the direct relationship between Algebra II and college success does not mean that the course is irrelevant.   The value of mastering the skills necessary for success in Algebra II transcends the direct use of logarithms, simultaneous equations or conic sections.  It, like Geometry and Pre-calculus, is a course that is heavily predicated on problem solving skills.  The mental discipline and reasoning required to be mastered can be easily transferred to non-math situations.  Passing this course or any other that demands a high level of persistence, dedication and focus will result in an outcome far more important than the curriculum itself.

Creating an educated society demands that students confront academic challenges.  One of the most disturbing arguments against requiring Algebra II for graduation is that it would encourage students to drop out of school.  Such a response raises the question—what is the purpose of having graduation requirements?  If it is to create an easy path to a diploma is there any wonder why so many students are bored in high school and subsequently struggle in college?  On the other hand, a course of study that demands that students leave their comfort level will strengthen their ability to conquer the more difficult intellectual tasks of the real world.  One of the core causes of the continuing high unemployment rates in this country is the poor educational skills of our workforce and the high expectations of jobs in the 21^st century.  This dilemma was demonstrated by Mr. Whoriskey’s report about the working conditions in a city in Arkansas, a state where the mastery of Algebra II has become a priority.

“For proof of the usefulness of Algebra II, students need look no farther than the largest employers in (the city of) Conway.  Acxiom, a database company that employs 2,100 in the town, hires software and database developers, most of whom have bachelor’s degrees in technical fields. For them, Algebra II skills are a prerequisite. Similarly, at Snap-on Equipment, a plant that employs 170 making the sophisticated gears that garages use to align and balance tires, most production jobs require associate’s degrees in electronics.

“By contrast, at the Kimberly-Clark plant, which makes feminine hygiene and adult incontinence products, production workers need only a high school education. The jobs pay 11 to $20 an hour, and when 70 spots recently came open during an expansion, about 2,000 people applied.

“‘We’re looking for people with the ability to think critically,’ said Jeremy Cannady, until recently a manufacturing efficiency coordinator at the plant. ‘but not the ability to do exponential functions or logarithms.’”

While logarithms may never find their way into one’s life, the critical thinking skills they have imparted will serve a very useful purpose when trying to understand car financing, weighing a decision on a medical procedure or the nuances of a job offer.  The aforementioned $11 per hour jobs have little or no room for negotiation; the ones at Acxion will involve discussing retirement plans, bonus structure and pay raise schedules.  Someone who has learned to understand the principles of Algebra II will be well prepared for such conversations.

Missing the educational point

The fact that there are questions about the rationale for requiring mastery of Algebra II reflects poorly on the students, parents and most of all the math teachers.   The purpose of an education is not solely to acquire a group of facts and skills that will then be transferred directly to a future occupation.  If that were the case there would be scant need to study the works of Shakespeare, the Civil War, Algebra II or a foreign language.  But reading great literature, understanding the ramifications of history and learning to manipulate numbers and words will improve an individual’s ability to think.  That capacity makes the manipulation of a smart phone, understanding the home loan process or building a storage shed much easier.  That this message is not being effectively transmitted to our students reflects one of the basic failures of education in our culture.  Teachers not only need to help students perform calculations precisely, they need to help students understand why they are doing it.  What is the relevance of their subject?  Why should students put the time and effort into learning a particular subject?  The inability of students, parents, teachers and society at large to articulate the importance of education is producing enormous problems for our country’s future.   

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:39 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

I recently expressed my concerns about the harsh rhetoric being employed in condemning teachers in Wisconsin and other states.  Mel Riddile pointed to such comments as a negative factor in the recruitment of new teachers.  But to my surprise and dismay as the budget battles escalate, the condemnation of educators has become even more hostile.  

Not exactly an apple for the teacher

One of the most odious recent comments was uttered by Mary Matalin on national television.  In the course of a diatribe about public sector workers, Ms. Matalin proclaimed, “We have to push back, pull back on these greedy, parasitic and selfish unions…”  Because she is far too intelligent to actually believe such inflammatory language, the hope is that Ms. Matalin is simply angry about some poor grade she received on a high school essay a few decades ago.  But compared to the previous attacks on teachers these words represent a significant increase in rancor.  For context a parasite is defined as “a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.”   While Ms. Matalin’s remarks stand alone for their level of contempt they are continually echoed in milder terms by many others.

Please stop the madness

These conversations have now lurched into the ridiculous and dangerous.  According to census data the median income for a person with a bachelor’s degree or more is $100,000.  But in Wisconsin a group of college-educated individuals earning an average of $51,000 annually have been cast as the primary cause of the collapse of the future hopes and dreams of an entire state.  And yet, during the recent arguments over tax cuts many of these same critics decreed that individuals making five times the average teacher salary did not deserve the label “rich” and were in need of fiscal relief.

In education the concept of equitable pay is almost laughable.  At a typical high school with a student body of 1,500, the principal is responsible for a staff of about 200 individuals.  Two-thirds of those employees have at least an undergraduate degree and many have masters and doctorates.  The question to be asked is how does the pay scale for that principal compare to someone in private industry with similar responsibilities and an equally well educated work force?

Note to Ms. Matalin—the children can hear you

When viewed from a distance its makes no sense to ridicule and demean the same individuals who are expected to be the role models and mentors for our youth.  When teenagers hear their teachers described as parasites and worse, it is hard to imagine that they will value the judgment of those same individuals on topics such as literature or evolution.  We continually preach to our children about the need for a college education in the 21^st century and then belittle the very people who can provide them a pathway to that goal.  And through the eyes of an adolescent what is the perceived value of that degree if a profession that requires that level of education is deemed greedy for requesting a living wage?  This is not a message that will inspire academic excellence.  This irresponsible behavior needs to stop.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:23 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The students in the 11^th grade English class were given an assignment that would have been impossible to complete in February, 2006.  They were told to respond to a reading based on the work of Ernest Hemingway.  While the literature being studied was available well before 2006, the method of delivering the homework was not.  The students in this class had to send in the assignment using Twitter and as prescribed on that site, keep their responses to 140 characters.

Some positive responses

The teacher who made this assignment is very enthusiastic about the outcomes.  “Part of my job is to get the students engaged,” she related. “It’s easier to do that if I can link the homework to Twitter and Facebook. The hope is that when it’s time for the AP exam, what started as a novelty will translate into a real skill.”

Her students were equally positive.   One describe her writing as more efficient, declarative, even staccato. “It was a total breakthrough,” she said.  Some sentiments match precisely with the thoughts expressed in a recent Mel Riddile post—concise writing equals better writing.

Other teachers have embraced additional aspects of social networks for instruction using a powerful combination of Facebook and the Canterbury Tales to study Chaucer’s work.   One senior English student was so excited by such an assignment she said, “I had to write interests and status updates for the friar in the story — he was like a total frat guy.” She then added, “It’s the kind of assignment I found interesting because I could relate to it.”

Other Facebook groups have been formed to relay information, have discussions and encourage inter-active study. 

Making it relevant

I found that one of the greatest obstacles in teaching mathematics was the abstract nature of the curriculum.  It soon became clear that academic success increased significantly by making the subject more applicable to a student’s life experiences.  In my own classroom we would weave topics such as probability, parametric motions and sequences and series to events familiar to the students.  The mathematics of television shows like “CSI”, price selection in clothing, and calculating successful field goal attempts would be studied at length. 

The English teachers in this article are doing the same.  They are bringing 14th century literature to life using 21st century technology.  Not surprisingly, many of the students have embraced this new approach.

Not everyone is convinced

In sharp contrast to the enthusiasm of the teachers and students, many educational policy makers are not quite ready to endorse the use of Twitter and Facebook.  Many states, including Virginia, are concerned with one of the more highly publicized, negative aspects of social networks - sexual predators.   

Education officials in that state are primarily concerned with the possibilities that this approach will give potential offenders greater access to students.   In the past decade the state has averaged more than a dozen cases per year of inappropriate relationships between teachers and students.  According to Virginia Department of Education spokesman Charles Pyle, the “vast majority” of those cases included texting and other forms of digital communication.

Some people do not see a direct correlation.  “It’s not about the technology, it’s about how it’s used, about acceptable behaviors,” said Kathy L. Smith, chairwoman of the Fairfax County (Virginia) School Board. “Somebody who wants to relate in that way is going to find a way to do it.”

No one, of course, would take the potential of sexual misconduct lightly.  But the larger question is whether using these technologies in the classroom would contribute to any increase in such behavior.  The reality is that adolescents in huge numbers are already engaged in significant activity on these sites.  Demonstrating a positive and responsible utilization of these tools may send a message that could elevate their personal adventures on the web.  There would be no guarantees of such an outcome but the potential for increased academic success must also be considered.  

High school students live in their own unique world of social networking, video games, homecoming floats and YouTube.  The more connections that educators can make between that universe and education the more likely it would be that the message of the importance of academic success will be received.  Ignoring the social network will not make it disappear and will only serve to widen the cultural gap between teachers and students.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:52 AM | Permalink

By Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

I do not want to get into the politics of the situation.  If governors around the country feel compelled to battle unions, so be it.  I do not want to get into the specifics of balancing budgets.  I understand that states cannot print money so financial shortfalls mandate pain for everyone.   I do not want to talk about how much money other people should be paid.  That is an assessment employers should be making.  But when I am bombarded on a regular basis by a narrative blaming teacher avarice for much of the monetary ills of 2011, I have to speak out.

When stalking ineffective teachers is not enough

For the past few years, educational policy makers across the country have pointed to poor student achievement as a direct reflection of the inadequate instruction they are receiving.  Newspapers have publicly humiliated teachers by publishing their students’ test scores with the approval of the Secretary of Education and other school leaders.  Bill Gates has invested millions of his dollars to find better teacher evaluation techniques.  I, too, have endorsed the need to find ways to remove underperforming teachers from classrooms as quickly as possible.

But now, thanks to the budget wars in Wisconsin, what was previously a rational discussion between thoughtful adults has turned into something akin to an argument between children during recess.  The litany of complaints against teachers could be ignored as childish and silly if it were not so widespread and fraught with serious ramifications.  On national television, teaching has been described as a part-time job because they only work nine months of the year and teachers are home every day before 3 p.m.   Some talking heads have opined that teacher unions are capable of making demands that would be the envy of the Teamsters union.   One 24-hour cable news network vilified the Wisconsin teachers for causing $7.5 million in damages to the building they had occupied.  Two days later that figure was corrected to a still lamentable but significantly smaller amount of $350,000.   According to other pundits, the chaos wrought by educators is nearly biblical in nature.  Teacher pension plans are described as equivalent to corporate golden parachutes.  When it comes to teachers, simply having health insurance is considered an extravagance.   But possibly the most outrageous assertion of all is that teacher salaries are the primary state budget-busters for this fiscal year.    And to think, some teachers thought that assigning too much homework was the reason they were so often maligned.

A good time for some number crunching

Some of the “facts” being used to justify the attacks on teachers and their unions are inaccurate; others are either misrepresentations or worse.  A realistic discussion must begin with an analysis of the basics.  The salaries of teachers in Wisconsin are far from exorbitant.  Their average is approximately $51,000 per year.  That ranks 24th in the country and trails two nearby states - Minnesota and Michigan. 

The actual comparison to the private sector is an apples-to-oranges equation.  Trying to compare performance bonuses, stock options and buyout clauses to pensions is murky at best. Within this past week Borders Books as part of its bankruptcy agreement is requesting $8.3 million in bonuses for their employees.  The claim is that they are losing employees at a rate of five per week.  Incentive payments for the top executives would range from $4.7 million to $7.1 million each.  One of the company’s arguments is that many of these people have been with the company for less than a year.  Then there are retention bonuses to non-executives which average $37,000. Border’s attorney wrote, “The debtors have concluded that the critical employees are highly talented and that it would be difficult if not impossible to replace them given the debtor’s current circumstances.” When corporations fail, they use monetary incentives to retain their best personnel; when schools fail, the teaching staff is fired without regard to the level of talent.  And no one seems terribly concerned with the potential loss of outstanding teachers or the unlikelihood of finding equivalent replacements during the current fiscal crisis.   

Additionally, when comparing teachers to the private sector no one seems to be taking into account the educational level of a typical teaching staff.  Every teacher has at least a college diploma.  Normally about half have advanced degrees and many possess doctorates.  How does that compare to those other work forces? 

A mathematical reality check

It is time to talk about pensions.  I am receiving a very nice one.  It almost matches my salary when I retired.  This generous package is the result of paying 15% of my paycheck into three retirement plans—the state, the school district and Social Security.  Using the Wisconsin figures of $51,000 per year on average for my forty-year career I would have contributed $7500 per year for four decades.  That is a total of about $300,000.  Throw in the accrued interest and if I receive a very generous $60,000 in total retirement annually, one could argue that the first eight to ten years are on my own dime.  Could it be that teachers are not robbing the taxpayer?

A few other realities need to be discussed.  No one is going to become wealthy with an income of $51,000 a year.  The majority of the teachers I hired could not afford to live in the county where they taught.  The unmarried ones usually had roommates; those with children normally commuted more than thirty minutes to find affordable housing; some of my most talented teachers left the teaching profession for other, more lucrative careers.

Teaching is no more of a part time job than farming.  During the ten months classes were in session at my school the parking lot was full by 7:00 a.m. and the majority of those cars were still there at 4:00.  Evenings and weekends were often reserved for grading and lesson planning.  Summers were spent taking classes, refining classroom skills and networking with other teachers.  Some people had to find ways to augment their income by doing a variety of part time jobs.  Which leads to the question—how many bankers or lawyers must tutor or supervise recreation centers to help purchase a second car? 

The unkindest cut

Without doubt the most unfathomable part of this discussion is the manner in which the words “teachers” and “greedy” are used in the same sentence.  Teachers can be described in many ways but avarice or materialistic would hardly serve as a descriptor.  

There is, however, a context in which the word “greedy” can apply.  Over the years, I had the good fortune to work with more teachers than I can count who were absolutely convinced that their subject was the most important one in the building.  As a consequence they would grab for as much of their students’ time as they could to share with them their excitement about and knowledge of the curriculum.  To that end, they would engage in fierce battles with other teachers, coaches, parents and outside interests.  Some might describe that as greed; others refer to it as great teaching. 

These people do not deserve to be a political punching bag.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:46 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The teacher’s lament was plaintive.  He had just been informed that the principal wanted to meet with him about an undisclosed topic.  “I know exactly what he wants to talk about.  It’s my grades—too many “F”s.   I am working harder than I ever have.  I have created a dozen different interventions.  But I can’t change my grading policies.  I know what my students need to be successful.  They are failing because they don’t know the required material.  I’m just giving them what they have earned.”  Another teacher had told him that she had recomputed her grades to avoid “the meeting”.  He then closed with the inspiration of this post.  “I’ll tell you what it is.  It’s grade inflation by intimidation.”

Not as simple as it looks

Virtually every day a new proposal is introduced to save public education in the United States.  Too many of these plans are more focused on reducing failing grades than on the creation of more successful students.  The mere act of lowering the number of “D” and “F” grades does not automatically improve academic performance.  To the contrary, an argument could be made that by giving inflated, inaccurate assessments students are being mislead as to their skill level and misplaced in future courses. 

The grades teachers assign are an important component in assessing their work but it is not a precise tool.  Like every other statistical measure it must be utilized by someone who understands all of the factors at play in any particular classroom.  The broad conclusion that an individual “gives too many poor grades” can be a dangerous oversimplification.

A long inflationary cycle

The presence of grade inflation is not a new phenomenon.  More than 25 years ago teacher evaluation meetings at my school always began with an examination of the “D/F rate."  An assistant principal would look at a printout giving the teacher’s percentage of students receiving grades of either “D” or “F”.  Unfortunately those raw numbers did not always tell the complete story.  For some students a grade of “D+” was a triumph over adversity and past history; for others a “C+” was a reflection of little or no effort.  But for the teachers the former would count as a negative statistic while the latter was of little or no concern.  Without understanding the complete context, individual grades and D/F rates mean little.  But the message, however misguided, was clear—better grades indicate better teaching.

This pressure was relentless.  During a discussion of the topic in a math department meeting one teacher stated the obvious.  “Listen, we are all math people here.  We have the capacity to construct our grading in whatever way they want.  Just tell us what percentages to have and we can make it happen.”  Whether she was serious or not, her contention was accurate. 

Over the years due to a variety of influences the inflation of grades has occurred.  In a typical suburban high school in 2011, a GPA of 3.0 which in theory translates into a “B” which is above average will rank a student in the middle of their class.  Though nearly all measures of achievement clearly indicate little or no improvement by today’s students, at least on paper their academic performance is clearly on the rise.

Parents join the fray

When the AP Biology teacher walked into the parent conference, she was confident that her position on the matter to be discussed was secure.  The student had missed the scheduled mid-term exam to go on a family ski trip.   Prior to the vacation he had presented a form for a prearranged absence.   The teacher had checked the block that indicated she did not approve.  In addition she had written on the paper what she had told the student in person—he would have to take the exam on his first day back at school.  This timing was appropriate since it was in keeping with the class policy she had established on the first day of school and until he took the exam none of his classmates could review their results.  

Though the student had accepted these stipulations, when he returned he informed the teacher that he was not prepared.  She insisted he take the test as per their agreement.  His score was low and resulted in his grade dropping from a “B-” to a “C” for the quarter.  

Some parents are more equal than others

The student’s father was a highly-regarded physician in the community.  During the preliminary discussions at the conference he appeared disinterested in the arguments being presented.  After about ten minutes he held up his hand and said, “Let me be clear.  I really don’t care about all of these details.  I just want to know what it is going to take to make this grade into a “B”.  I don’t care if it is a retest or just exclude him from the mid-term or whatever, let’s find the answer.”  The teacher refused to alter the grade and was asked to leave the meeting.  Later that day the principal informed her that the “C” had been changed to the desired “B”. 

An issue of fairness

Based on this change, the teacher was faced with an ethical dilemma.  Giving this student a “B” would lessen the value of the grades earned by the other students in the class.  Consequently, she decided to proportionally raise everyone’s grades.  Once again, while no additional learning had actually taken place, on paper every student in the course had improved their academic performance.  Not surprisingly, as the details of this episode spread throughout the staff, teachers began to have second thoughts when enforcing valid policies that might result in lower grades.

A time and a place

Many school districts have designed creative methods to give the appearance of reduced disciplinary referrals, absenteeism and dropout rates.  Too often grades are also just another statistic to be manipulated in order to give the appearance of improved success.  There are some teachers whose grading indicates either an inability to correctly assess student performance or ineffective instructional skills.  Such situations must be addressed directly and corrected immediately if education is to be successful. 

But the danger is when lockstep grade expectations are placed on an entire faculty or school district.  There should be cause for concern when a conversation with a teacher who has years of successful experience begins with “you are giving too many bad grades”.   Grades are meaningless if they are not a legitimate reflection of student learning.  The key to truly improving grades is to ensure that students are gaining mastery of the subject matter.  When knowledge acquisition is attained, D/F rates will decline.  And more importantly, they will indicate real academic progress.  

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:37 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Like Mel Riddile, I saw the recent “60 Minutes” segment featuring the TEP School (The Equity Project) in New York City.   The opening tease about a school offering teacher salaries of $125,000 drew my attention.  The segment itself was riveting.  The discussions of hiring, firing and tenure policies in the report were persuasive.  The passion of the teachers and the school’s founder was palpable.  The stories of 80 to 90 hour work weeks were a testament to dedication.  The scenes with the students interacting with their instructors were exhilarating.  The evaluation process with peer involvement and regular administrative visits was inspiring.  I turned to my wife, a retired high school teacher, and announced “I think these people are on to something.”  That enthusiasm was significantly diminished during the final two minutes of the segment. 

Despite the high pay, long hours, classroom enthusiasm and attention to detail, student academic scores fell in the school’s first year.  Of course, one year is hardly a fair trial period but an actual drop in such results is a valid point of concern as well as a reason for some reexamination.

A benign dictatorship

I recently heard in a discussion on NPR that a global dictator would be required to ensure that the world would productively address climate change.  The rationale is that with an all-powerful individual making the decisions, the necessary policy adjustments could be put into place without the intervention of special interests.  It is a parallel analogy to the account that a dictator was the only person who ever successfully made the Italian trains run on time.   Democracy can be so messy.

The TEP model is also a one-man operation.  Its founder and principal, Zeke Vanderhoek, hires and fires the teachers, observes their classes on a regular basis and makes all policy decisions.   Because of his complete control he has been able to creatively increase salaries, easily remove underperforming teachers, eradicate tenure and quickly implement program changes.  All of these factors are positive steps toward improving education.  Plus, as a result of his immense power, his teachers do not have to deal with the same type of bureaucracy other educators face in traditional schools.  If they need an answer or wish to make a suggestion, they need only walk down the hall.   

What has gone wrong?

Working 80 hours a week is impressive.  That amount of time is a clear reflection of commitment but not necessarily a formula for success.  As much as I would love to play in the Major Leagues, even if I spent 12 hours a day, seven days a week in the batting cage, I am not going to successfully hit a Roy Halladay fast ball.  Likewise, a teacher who works twice as many hours is not automatically twice as effective.  Every experienced educator has worked with people who arrive ten minutes before the first bell, leave shortly after the buses and are remarkably successful teachers.  On the other hand, some of the most unproductive educators I have encountered spent voluminous hours in the building.  While no one is quite sure what they were doing, there was no doubt as to its ineffectiveness.  A school’s success is measured by student performance not by the time cards or paychecks of the teachers.  Though it is still early in the process the overriding question remains:  Why is the immense sacrifice of time by the TEP staff not yielding better results?

A potential answer could be found in the administrative structure of the school.  There is no question to the commitment of Mr. Vanderhoek.  It is readily apparent that his primary desire is to create a positive learning environment for the students and teachers.  But he is not unique.  There are multitudes of educational leaders whose passion to find a winning educational formula would match his.  And the majority of those individuals understand that the best recipe for success requires multiple ingredients.  (Here is an additional perspective by an NYC parent.)

Good education needs cross pollination

Portions of the TEP model should be replicated throughout school systems in the country.  Similar effective hiring, firing and evaluation policies must be created to form the best teaching staffs possible.  Highly qualified principals have to clearly possess the institutional power to implement their vision of academic excellence.  But this path needs to include a diverse and significant amount of outside input.  Teacher opinions should be constantly sought.  Other programs should be observed and studied.  Stories of success and failure must be shared at every level both vertically and horizontally.   Strategies that have been proven to work need to be utilized and refined; those that do not should be discarded. 

The lessons of the TEP School’s first year are that relying on only one person’s interpretation of best practices can thwart maximizing potential outcomes.  And when teachers are working 90 hours a week and significant student progress is not occurring it is a clear warning that something is terribly wrong.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:02 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Bill Gates is a marvelous advocate for education in America.  He has clearly demonstrated his commitment both in time and money.  His views as an extraordinarily successful businessman and an educational outsider are both provocative and productive.  In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, Mr. Gates has outlined a series of constructive proposals for improving U. S. student performance despite the significant financial problems confronting so many school districts.

Some great ideas

One aspect of Mr. Gates analysis is the classroom:

“We know that of all the variables under a school's control, the single most decisive factor in student achievement is excellent teaching. It is astonishing what great teachers can do for their students. Yet compared with the countries that outperform us in education, we do very little to measure, develop and reward excellent teaching. We have been expecting teachers to be effective without giving them feedback and training.”

Most teachers would agree with these comments.  I have long argued that the majority of teacher evaluation programs currently in use need some serious improvement.  There must be a more comprehensive approach which includes professional evaluators, constant feedback and some student input. 

In addition, Mr. Gates is not happy with the use of seniority in teaching.

“The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It's reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that's not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement."

“Another standard feature of school budgets is a bump in pay for advanced degrees. Such raises have almost no impact on achievement, but every year they cost $15 billion that would help students more if spent in other ways.”

A solution that must be implemented carefully

Mr. Gates concludes with some thoughts about class size.

“Perhaps the most expensive assumption embedded in school budgets - and one of the most unchallenged - is the view that reducing class size is the best way to improve student achievement. This belief has driven school budget increases for more than 50 years. U.S. schools have almost twice as many teachers per student as they did in 1960, yet achievement is roughly the same."

“What should policymakers do? One approach is to get more students in front of top teachers by identifying the top 25 percent of teachers and asking them to take on four or five more students. Part of the savings could then be used to give the top teachers a raise. (In a 2008 survey funded by the Gates Foundation, 83 percent of teachers said they would be happy to teach more students for more pay.) The rest of the savings could go toward improving teacher support and evaluation systems, to help more teachers become great.”

It is important to note that Mr. Gates is referring to an increase in class size of about 15%.   When individuals less knowledgeable interpret enlargement of class size, things go awry.  Base on their current budget cuts,  the city of Detroit is anticipating classes in excess of 60 in the near future  – an increase of 100%.  Many classes in New York City are already at those levels.  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has postulated that, for excellent teachers, working with large classes is no more difficult than working with smaller ones.  He mentioned that he had attended college classes that contained hundreds of students.  Of course those classes were at Princeton and Georgetown Law School which more than likely bear little resemblance to an Algebra 1 class in Detroit or New York or anywhere else for that matter. 

Great teachers not super heroes

The primary flaw in these arguments is the belief that increasing the size of classes only requires additional furniture.  There is no question that an excellent teacher can give high quality instruction to classes of 35 or more while poor ones will struggle no matter how small their audience.  But the belief that student learning is unaffected by significantly larger numbers is misguided.  A successful teacher has a great many tasks in addition to delivering instruction.  Students, like teachers, benefit from consistent and meaningful feedback on their classroom performance.  Twice as many students mandates half as much feedback. Any teacher will tell you that grading papers is easily as time consuming as preparing lesson plans.  Evaluating 60 quizzes or tests per class would be daunting to say the least.  Due entirely to time constraints, comprehensive exams would have to be replaced by short answer or multiple choice ones.  Extended essays and research papers would disappear. Answering student questions and individualizing instructions, the strengths of the best educators, would have to be curtailed.  Science labs would become virtually impossible due to a shortage of equipment and safety concerns.  Group projects and presentations would be untenable.  Even the simple acts of taking attendance, posting grades and parent conferences could become overwhelming. At the very least, they would require far too much valuable time.  The quality of the educational experience for students in these significantly larger classes would suffer greatly.

In the proposal by Mr. Gates he mentions that the vast majority of teachers would gladly take on more students if their pay was increased.  Unfortunately, this survey was of all teachers not just excellent ones.  I suspect that if that question were only asked of the best educators there might be a different result.  But even if the top teachers did agree, one stumbling block would remain.  While tactics could be put in place to increase salaries, no one has found a method of adding more hours to the day. 

It is true that the success of any class rests squarely on the shoulders of the teacher and creating more great teachers is the key to any future improvement of our schools.  They need to be identified, rewarded and emulated.  Having them teach a few more students makes perfect sense on many levels.  But too much of any good thing can lead to bad outcomes resulting in further degradation of the educational process and outcomes in the United States.  Proceed with caution—class size does matter.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:59 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In 1999 I was asked by the Future Teachers of America club at my school to speak at a monthly meeting.  Recently, I looked at a copy of my remarks that day and realized that in the ensuing twelve years few of the good or bad aspects of education have changed.  Here is a transcript of those comments:

“It is a great pleasure for me to speak to this group today.  When I was a sophomore in high school I made the decision to become a mathematics teacher.   That opinion formed at age fifteen never changed.  When I was in college my goal was to graduate and obtain a teaching job in Northern Virginia.  By December of my senior year I was offered a position at JEB Stuart High School.  That was 32 years ago.

“Last year I had the opportunity to retire.  I declined that option choosing to continue my career because after more than three decades of teaching I still love this job.  And this afternoon I would like to explain why.

“Whenever I make a decision I try to list the pros and cons.  I can do the same about the profession of teaching.  The cons would go like this:

 - You will never get rich.  You will not be poor but the opportunity for great wealth will never be available.

 - If you do a good job as a teacher you will by necessity be working very hard.  Teaching is not an easy job and it is only getting harder.

 - You will constantly be under scrutiny.  Hundreds of eyes are watching your every move.  Any mistake will be quickly noted and remembered.  The spotlight is never off.

“As you can see, teaching like any job is not perfect.  But when one considers the pros the negatives seem to grow a whole lot smaller.

 - Every year, every day, every hour is a unique experience.  The word monotonous is never appropriate in teaching.  Creativity is rewarded; boring is a dirty word.  In addition you have the added bonus of starting your career anew every September.  Most professions do not have the luxury of having such a start and finish.

 - You make a difference.   As a teacher you will touch lives, enrich lives and change lives.  You can actually make the world a better place.  One of the most satisfying experiences an educator can have is to have a successful adult come back to tell you that you helped make them what they are today.  How many people by simply doing their job can positively affect the future of so many individuals?  And these stories refer to anyone whose life has been made better by your teaching not just the lawyers or doctors.  I am constantly surprised by the people who have come back to thank me.

 - You are a very important person.  Let me share two stories with you.  I received a phone call from a physician about his son who was a student of mine.  When I returned the call his nurse gave me the standard response.  ‘I’m sorry but the doctor is with a patient.  I will have to take a message and have him call you back.’  When I told her who I was the response was instantaneous, ‘One moment please’ and I was immediately put through to the doctor.  I had a similar experience when calling a high ranking individual at the Pentagon.  What was the reason for such amazing access?  Even for “important” people teachers are among the most significant individuals in the life of their child.

 - You get to stay young and energized.  Youth is contagious.  Working with young people like you keeps one young.

 - Finally, remember the old saying that it is better to give than to receive?  What a job.  In teaching every day is an opportunity to give; to give knowledge, to give inspiration, to give advice, to give hope.

“Future teachers, as you move forward keep the role of the teacher in mind.  It is a great job!”

Looking at this speech years later I realize there is little need to edit any of the content.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:31 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In an article in the Washington Post, Jay Mathews lamented that his loss of electricity and the internet due to a snowstorm had reduced him to writing a column about television shows that featured an educational theme.  After an extensive review of “Glee” he then solicited readers to give him “top five” lists of their favorites.   Since that same storm had also robbed me of my electricity and internet, I have decided to take some time to respond to his request.

A vast wasteland

TV shows about high schools are a pretty dreary lot.   I accept the reality that I may be the only person on the planet who does not adore “Glee”.  Perhaps my evaluation of that show is skewed by the fact that while I had many exhilarating days during my forty-year teaching career I cannot recall a single one that would have come close to paralleling an episode of that show.  The protagonists and antagonists in a real school are far more nuanced and complicated than the broad characters portrayed on that Fox musical/drama.  The same critique could apply to virtually every other attempt by television to bring the academic world to the screen.   An honest look at the classroom simply does not translate into “must see” TV.  That shortcoming, however, does not mean that education has not been given a boost by one long-running series.

A surprising choice

As I read the column by Mr. Mathews one show sprang to mind.  For more than a decade CSI has been a strong, if possibly unintentional, advocate for the educational community.  For many years this drama featuring the work of the crime scene investigators of Las Vegas was the most popular show on television.  More importantly, it promotes the use of brain power in lieu of muscle.  From the perspective of the classroom teacher it has been an oasis of intellectual thought in a desert of mindless violence and over simplification. 

In a testosterone-laden era where Jack Bauer of “24” would shoot first and apologize later while “Hawaii Five-O” among others provides at least one massive explosion between each commercial break, the featured characters on CSI painstakingly solve every crime one piece of evidence at a time.   There is no glamour in their endeavors.  Their work is presented as slow and tedious.  On many occasions their initial efforts to solve the case fail and they have to start over.  Multiple attempts are the rule not the exception.  For the classroom teacher these efforts compare favorably to the work required to solve a complex math problem, perform a complicated science lab, studying a play by William Shakespeare or determining the underlying causes of World War II.   Based on conversations I had with my students it was clear that at the height of its popularity CSI impressed upon adolescents the power of logical thinking and diligence.  This outcome is no small feat and is a testament to the power of the media.

Life imitating fiction

In an effort to build on this message I actually used an episode of CSI as a portion of a lesson on parametric motion problems.  The premise of the show was that a gunshot randomly fired into the air was the cause of a homicide rather than from a suspect a few feet in front of the victim.  Using procedures similar to those utilized by the investigators portrayed on the show, the class demonstrated that the entry angle of the bullet was consistent with the downward trajectory of one fired virtually straight up and the depth of the wound equated to a distance of several city blocks.   By the time this class was completed there were more than a few converts to the power of math. 

I truly believe this level of success could not have been achieved without the influence of this show.  CSI  represents the educational process at it best.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 07:12 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Many school districts have decided to have remediation sessions during the school day. This approach adversely impacts the vast majority of students and needs to be replaced.

“There is no limit to what you learn about schools if you listen to teachers.”   When I saw this opening sentence to a recent article by Jay Mathews in the Washington Post I was pleased to see that he and I were in agreement on a valuable but underutilized source of educational information.  Those pleasant thoughts quickly faded into the background, however, as I continued to read.   Mr. Mathews’ teacher-based information was concerning a district-wide plan for high school “recess” and one school’s implementation.  I soon found myself muttering “What in the world are they thinking?”

In theory the initiative is simple.  In an effort to decrease failures on end-of-course barrier exams in May, the school day is interrupted twice a week for 45 minutes to allow students to do independent work.  Unfortunately the actual results appear to be missing their intended target.  According to one teacher in the building “…students get 90 free minutes a week, which they can use to find dates for Saturday night or check basketball scores if they want…(too many are) socializing, surfing the Internet or - I am not kidding - watching TV in the cafeteria, all during the school day when parents assume their children are in class.”

The principal of the school has a different take saying “most students do homework, work on group projects or enrich their studies. It helps teachers to be creative…even if some students just look for imaginative ways to goof off.”

Even if the truth lies somewhere in between these two views, the overall plan would seem to be counterproductive and not the best approach to solving the proposed problem.  On average only 10% of the student body at this school fail the exams in question.   In a free-form activity period a significant portion of this group does not utilize the time effectively.  Based on administrative data these sessions have reduced the number of “D” and “F” grades by about one-third.  That number would translate into a benefit for a little less than four percent of the student body.  Meanwhile 90 minutes of dedicated class time has been lost each week for the other nine out of ten students.

Far too precious to waste

For months both Mel Riddile and I have written about the importance of providing students and teachers adequate time.  On numerous occasions the discussion has focused on the need to expand the school day, week and year.  And yet this district has decided to reduce class time in an attempt to assist a very small and in many cases reluctant portion of the student community. 

The teacher in the article has calculated that the missing 90 minutes each week translates into a loss of ten days of school.  While removing the equivalent of two weeks of instructional time will have severe adverse effects on many students in actuality the outcomes are even worse.   An extensive unsupervised break in the middle of a school day will destroy momentum and focus in the typical classroom.  Ask any teacher what happens after a fire alarm, pep rally or school assembly.  What they will tell you is that it takes a significant amount of time to get many of their students back on task.   Such hidden costs are inevitable after a 45-minute “recess”.

A better approach for all

For nearly a decade my former school had a very different method for remediating students in the four core subject areas.  We developed the After School Academic Program (ASAP).   It was a plan that was voluntary for teachers and mandatory for students.  A measure of the success of ASAP was the fact that nearly 90% of all eligible teachers participated and many in non-core subjects requested the opportunity to be included.  Parents would call guidance counselors to request that their children be part of the program.  Perhaps the ultimate positive statement was made by those students who requested to remain in ASAP even after their grades had improved sufficiently to allow them to depart. 

The plan was not complicated.  Teachers would target failing students who would benefit from an additional thirty to forty-five minutes of after school instruction each week.  Individuals who were receiving poor grades for attendance or discipline issues would be excluded since this program would not address their specific needs.  A list of students was compiled and an administrator would assign each student to an afternoon session that would begin within fifteen minutes of the end of the day.

Late buses were provided to give transportation home if needed and all extra-curricular activities could not begin until ASAP concluded.   The consequences for not attending—administrative detention (no teacher involvement)—were consistent, enforced and effective.  The program was conducted within teacher contract time. 

Any similar approach would be vastly superior to the one described in Mr. Mathews’ article.  All students and teachers would benefit from the return of those missing 90 minutes.  The students who need extra attention from the staff would be the recipients of an additional period of focused instructional time.  The school day would be molded to better fit the needs of the entire student body. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 07:52 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

College athletes serve as role models for many high school students.  Recent trends in NCAA eligibility and university attitudes raise concerns about the educational behaviors being modeled.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama received a standing ovation when he said there should be more prestige in winning the science fair than the super bowl.   Currently in this country that is clearly not the case.  His sentiment is particularly relevant for high school educators in light of recent trends in athletics at universities.   College athletes can be powerful role models for many high school students.  In the past when these collegians demonstrated on a regular basis that sports could be a path to a college degree such adulation was a positive force.   Unfortunately, the current environment on many college campuses is not sending the same message and has a potentially negative impact on education.

A reasonable solution

College students on athletic scholarships are often placed into difficult situations.  Nearly twelve months of the year, coaches demand inordinate amounts of their time.  During the season they can be away from campus for days or even weeks and unable to attend classes.   For the most talented there are constant distractions from the media and the student body.  Finally, despite their fame and exposure, these are young men and women who are still maturing and learning about themselves and their goals in life. 

For decades universities have addressed some of these obstacles by allowing student athletes five academic years to complete their four years of athletic eligibility.  The plan is simple.  These individuals could reduce the academic load by about 20% and take five years to complete the requirements for graduation.  Most would be “redshirted” their freshmen year giving them time to hone their academic skills and adjust to college life while practicing but not playing with their teams.   Based on all of the available data, that seems to have been a fair and viable solution.

A turn in the wrong direction

“Fair and viable” have been replaced with calculated and hypocritical.  A confluence of events during the past decade has made a mockery of the concept of the student/ athlete.  A rule by the National Basketball Association requiring high school athletes to wait until one year after twelfth grade  before entering the league has created a new phenomenon—“one and done”.   The National Football League dispensed with its rule that players could not enter the league until their collegiate classes would have graduated.  This change had predictable results. Large numbers of football players began leaving their campuses after three years and far short of meeting graduation requirements.   Adding to the negative environment are the current eligibility rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) which are less than rigorous.  To be eligible a student/athlete must be enrolled in 12 hours of class each semester.  However, they need only pass six hours (2 classes) to be eligible to play the next semester.   Long-term in order to maintain eligibility an athlete must pass 18 hours in an academic year which includes the fall, spring and summer sessions.  Abuses of the system are legendary.  Hall of Fame coach Bobby Knight told ESPN’s Mike and Mike in the Morning “College sports have become a cesspool…it is inexcusable that a player can attend no classes in the spring semester and still be eligible to play in the NCAA tournament.  It’s disgusting.”

For these athletes it is also a cruel game of “bait and switch.”  With visions of millions of dollars and unlimited fame beckoning how many people would choose meals in the school dining hall and term papers?  Unfortunately, the percentage of athletes who drop out of college and successfully become professionals is extremely low.  For the majority the ultimate outcome is the loss of their scholarship, eligibility and best opportunity for a productive future.

What can high school educators do?

Realistically, high school educational leaders have little input into this situation.  Their voices are quickly drowned out by the money and publicity of big-time college sports.  One potential action would be to drawn attention to the great examples that still exist in the sports world.  Michael Jordan and Shaquille O’Neal went back to school to earn their degrees after beginning their NBA careers.  Myron Rolle of Florida State postponed entering the NFL for a year to be a Rhodes Scholar.  These stories need to be made a point of emphasis for students.  Equally important, potential college athletes must be given an accurate and realistic analysis of the abuses and pitfalls they may encounter.

Regardless of the lack of potential influence, high school educators must also take every opportunity to remind universities that the current trends do not reflect well on them as institutions of higher learning and they do not serve the best interests of students in public education.  Being silent gives a bad practice a free pass and will only result in more abuses. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:22 PM | Permalink

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

I have always believed that great coaching and great teaching are interchangeable commodities.   This conviction was fortified when I read the story of a professor of Russian at Indiana University.  After watching basketball practice led by Bobby Knight in the school’s field house he turned to a colleague and said, “I just witnessed the finest teaching on this campus.” 

The life of another marvelous teacher/coach, Vince Lombardi, has been chronicled in an    HBO sports documentary “Lombardi”.  This riveting film provides important insights into a powerful battle plan for success in both academics and athletics.  Lombardi’s talents as a coach were clearly established by his record.  He inherited a team in Green Bay that had only one victory the previous season and had not had a winning record in more than a decade.  His initial season reversed that trend with seven wins and only five losses.  In the next eight he won five world championships.  One recurring theme throughout the discussion of his remarkable success on the football field was that Lombardi’s greatest strength was as a teacher.  His former players spoke with reverence of how this man had taught them to be both better players and better people. 

In the beginning

His skills as an educator and coach began at the high school level.  Lombardi began his career at a small Catholic school with an enrollment of 300.  The 26-year old taught Latin, Chemistry and Physics.   One of his former students recalled, “He was driven.  He was determined that every one of us would learn.  For the slower students he showed great patience. He took whatever time was necessary to make sure they would understand.  He demanded that we do our best.”  (Lombardi’s fiery personality on the field was also present in the classroom.  The same student related in vivid detail an incident that had occurred more than 60 years ago.  He recounted the story of how the teacher/coach threw an eraser at a girl who was talking in the back of the room.  He added that discipline was no longer a problem after that event.)

A similarly aggressive approach was taken on the football field.  Though the school was significantly smaller than the others in its conference, Lombardi insisted that his team could be better than their opponents.  “Every one of the other teams seemed to be at least a head taller than all of us,” related a former player.  “But somehow he convinced us that it didn’t matter.  He made us believe we could do anything.”  Playing against schools with enrollments ten times as large, his teams won six championships in eight years.  At one point they won 32 games in a row.

As I watched this story unfold it was quickly apparent how appropriate the methods utilized by Lombardi in his coaching would be in creating academic success.  His words were equally powerful on the field or in the classroom.

 “I can learn anything if I try.”

 Despite his great success in football, perhaps Lombardi’s most remarkable achievement occurred with the school’s basketball team.  Though he had never played the game, when there was a coaching vacancy, he accepted the challenge.  Armed with a book he had secured from the library on how to coach basketball, he began a second coaching adventure.  Combining his educational skills, motivational tools, and a daily rereading of the various chapters he found most appropriate, he was soon the leader of another championship team.  His lack of experience or knowledge of the sport was no match for his talents as a teacher.  This episode demonstrates how important it is to effectively convey information as an educator.  All teachers need to be equipped with the ability to communicate their subject matter and a vision of what their students need to know in order to succeed.  

 “You cannot coach them what they have not been taught.”

Every great teacher or coach understands that without a solid grounding in the fundamentals improvement cannot be attained.  Lombardi realized that he could not expect his players to excel until they understood the basics of everything he was trying to achieve.  It was reminiscent of another great coach and teacher UCLA’s John Wooden.  Wooden began the first practice of every season with a detailed lecture on the correct way to tie one’s shoelaces.  Wooden knew this speech was a source of amusement for his players many of whom had heard it for three or four years.  But he also knew that a player who had blisters on his feet was of little value. 

The same philosophy is required in education. Learning good study skills are just as important to academic success as the three-point stance in football or properly tying your sneakers.  Without a strong foundation in Algebra 1, reading, the scientific method, the first year of a language, or grammar, all subsequent courses will suffer. 

“Always seek perfection.  You will never attain it, but if you try you may pass excellence along the way.”

No detail is too small or unimportant.  Lombardi’s favorite play was his “power sweep.”  John Madden recalled a coaching seminar he attended that featured a lecture by Lombardi on the play.  “I went in there cocky thinking I knew everything there was to know about football,” reflected Madden who was a young assistant at the time, “and he spent eight hours talking about this one play.  He talked for four hours, took a break and came back and talked four more.”  Madden shook his head.  “I realized then that I actually knew nothing about football.”

Lombardi, an undersized offensive lineman at Fordham University who was immortalized as one of the “seven blocks of granite”, understood that he was an imperfect man both as a person and as an athlete.  What he also realized was that the sincere pursuit of perfection would result in continual improvement and ultimately success.  Consequently a winning season was not his goal as a coach.  A championship was always his ultimate objective.  As his teams worked toward achieving that aim, victories would follow.  The same strategy needs to be employed in teaching.   When expectations are low, minimal success will result.  Only when educators have the highest of expectations for their students combined with rigor to match will academic success be maximized. 

 “Winning is everything.  Anything else is losing.”

In later life Lombardi regretted making this comment.  He clarified that what he really meant was that “if someone gives any endeavor every fiber of their being, they can consider themselves a winner.”   If the similar demands were placed on our educators and students would not the results in our schools be the same as the Packers?  Should we ask anything less?

The formula is always the same

Vince Lombardi was not the first coach to win multiple championships nor would he be the last.  He did not invent a strategy that guaranteed victory.  What he did do was build a clear vision of what factors were the keys to success.    The plan was remarkable in its simplicity.  He only concerned himself with those aspects he could control.  He could not make his players inherently better athletes.  Instead, he stressed that every player was drilled on the fundamentals, knew his responsibilities, gave his maximal effort at every opportunity and understood that what was best for the team was what was best for him as well.  Lombardi would not allow for compromise on these beliefs or tolerate shortcuts to make the path less difficult.  He sought perfection and found excellence at almost every turn. 

Is this a plan that would work equally well for education?  Vince Lombardi’s record of success should make the answer to that question obvious.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:30 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

High schools in the United States must effectively deal with two simultaneous challenges.  In addition to preparing a portion of their population to have the tools required to succeed immediately in the work force after graduation they must also equip the remainder of the student body to thrive on a college campus. The latter responsibility is critical if this country is to be competitive in the global economy. Currently only 30% of Americans possess a college degree - a number that must improve. Strategies need to be designed to ensure that more students succeed in progressing through the kindergarten to college continuum.  But there are some troubling reports emerging concerning the quality of the education at many universities.   

A very low bar

According to an article by Mary Beth Marklein in the USA Today, “Nearly half of the nation's undergraduates show almost no gains in learning in their first two years of college, in large part because colleges don't make academics a priority.”  The report was based on the book by New York University professor Richard Arum Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses which studied transcripts from more than 3,000 full-time traditional-age students on 29 campuses nationwide.  In addition the researchers used the results from the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test that gauges students' critical thinking, analytic reasoning and writing skills.  The numbers are discouraging—after two years of college, 45% of the students demonstrated no significant gains in learning.  After four years, more than one third (36%) still showed little improvement.

Many reasons - few which are good

The report attributed the lack of academic progress to a number of factors:

-  Instructors tend to be more focused on their own faculty research than teaching younger students.

- Students were more involved in their social lives than their academic success.

- Students spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago.

- Half of the students in the survey said they never took a class in a typical semester where they wrote more than 20 pages; 32% never took a course in a typical semester where they read more than 40 pages per week.

Professor Arum, the lead author of the book, found the results of great concern. “These are really…shocking, disturbing numbers.”  One number that might be even more appalling was 3.2—the average GPA of the students in the study.  Arum then stated the obvious “Students are able to navigate through the system quite well with little effort.”

An unfortunate helping hand

One of those navigational skills employs the ability to purchase rather than learn.  I recently performed a Google search on the topic “Research Paper”.  The original intent was to find out information for someone who was seeking honors credit in a college class.  Much to my surprise four of the top five options were websites that offered “from scratch” essays ranging from term papers to dissertations.  These sites offered 100% guaranteed satisfaction, free delivery and charged on average less than $8 per page.  The turnaround time was the main cost consideration.  The student need only send in the required topic, format, citation requirements and length.  The proliferation of companies offering these services adds to Professor Arum’s arguments.

While such “services” are certainly not the main cause of the lack of learning on college campuses they do speak to the larger problem.  Too many lines are being blurred in the pursuit of a degree.  What accountability do colleges have in demonstrating that they are effectively teaching their students?  High schools are constantly under pressure to monitor the intellectual and moral development of their students.  Are universities responsible for scrutinizing undergraduates in the same manner?  Is success in college due to actual student performance or high parental tuition payments? 

Is this a concern for high school educators?

I have postulated that the decline in public education can at least partially be attributed to an attitude in our society that is more concerned about eliminating failure than it is in creating success.  These statistics give credence to the belief that this attitude has continued into higher education.

The poor academic performance of so many college students raises many questions in reference to their experiences in high school.  Is the ability to achieve good grades with little knowledge acquisition unique to the university or is it being cultivated in earlier years?  Is the lack of rigor and high expectations a carryover from the high school or is it found only at the university level?   Has grade inflation made all performances suspect?  

While the problems established in this research may apply exclusively to the students in college, they should be of concern to everyone in education.  Finding the root causes could reveal some weaknesses that need to be addressed. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:24 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Master Teacher

The latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results have been announced.  In this test, which included 15-year old students in 34 countries, the United States ranked 14thin reading, 17th in science and 25th in math.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced, “The results are extraordinarily challenging to us and we have to deal with the brutal truth. We have to get much more serious about investing in education.” He continued, “This is an absolute wake up call for America." 

Predictable outcomes will ensue.  Our students’ academic problems will be cast as the direct result of the failure of educators with special attention given to teachers and principals.   Fingers will be pointed, jobs will be lost, money will be spent and research studies will be launched.  New names will be given to strategies that have failed in the past.  And in 2012 when the next PISA tests are given the results will be remarkably similar.

A culture of denial

These rash, thoughtless responses are not the exclusive domain of the Department of Education. The majority of the blame rests squarely on a society that consistently seeks fast, easy fixes rather than tough, permanent solutions.  As a culture we strive mightily to reduce the perception of failure but have little interest in creating genuine success.

The most recent brouhaha in Congress over the tax code is an illustration of the preference for expediency rather than a difficult resolution.  The debate was clearly drawn—the Democrats wanted to extend unemployment benefits and the Republicans said no because it would add to the deficit.  The GOP sought tax relief for the rich.  They were told no because it would add to the deficit.  The solution spoke volumes—pass both.  

The option to choose the easy “yes” over the more challenging “no” permeates nearly every societal endeavor.  We wring our hands about rising childhood obesity but when common sense is sought on the ubiquity of fat and sugar laden school bake sales, cries of “nanny state” proliferate.  Instead of undertaking the challenging task of explaining the complexity behind the use of the “n-word” by Mark Twain, movements are afoot to replace the offensive reference with “slave” thus making the book far more palatable to those with no interest in the actual intent of the author.

The sports world is equally guilty of favoring quantity over quality.  In 1950 the NCAA had eight bowl games after the completion of the college football season.  These events were designed to recognize the very best college teams in the nation.  Only sixteen squads were considered good enough to participate.  Being part of this select group was special for both the players and their schools.  In 1970 there were 11 games and by 1980 the number had risen to 15.   The combined lure of more money and an opportunity to artificially make more programs look good created an explosion of meaningless games.  By 2000 there were 25 and this year the count is at 35.  More than half of all NCAA teams now participate in a bowl.  The stated requirement for entry is six victories in a twelve-game season.   Apparently, this is our new, twenty-first century’s definition of “athletic excellence”?

Obviously, our educational system is not exempt from these trends.  My former school district now adds a 1.0 (in a 4.0 grading system) for all advanced courses and a 0.5 for ones labeled honors.  And there are plenty of these courses to go around.  One high school teacher complained that only sixteen of the science classes in her entire building were not called honors.  But despite the windfall of bonus points, the requirements for the honor roll are unchanged.  A GPA of 3.0 is quickly becoming the new “average” score and a 4.5 (out of 4) rarely merits valedictorian consideration. Is it any surprise that students living in this cultural environment have bought into the concept that hard work and discipline are unnecessary when time after time, the system brings success to them without any effort on their part? 

Improvement requires tough choices

Creating an educational system that is commensurate with our world view of the United States will not be accomplished with empty rhetoric, sporadic firings, or excessive handwringing.  It will only be accomplished when this country is willing to stop looking for shortcuts and quick fixes and turns instead to fundamental changes that will result in true reform.  The school year needs to be lengthened as does the school day.  Summer vacations should disappear along with social promotions.  The teaching profession needs to be recognized as important and populated with people worthy of that stature.  Their input should be the foundation of future educational policy.  Administrators should be chosen for their vision and leadership abilities and then allowed and encouraged to use both.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:54 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Recently I was asked for my thoughts concerning the revisions being incorporated into the AP program.  In the next few years several of these classes are going to undergo extensive changes.  According to Christopher Drew in the New York Times “…many of the (AP) courses, particularly in the sciences and history, have also been criticized for overwhelming students with facts to memorize and then rushing through important topics.”  Mr. Drew continues, “A.P. teachers have long complained that lingering for an extra 10 or 15 minutes on a topic can be a zero-sum game, squeezing out something else that needs to be covered for the exam. PowerPoint lectures are the rule. The homework wears down many students.”  The prime focus of the changes will be the tests administered at the conclusion of the classes.  The plan is to reduce the volume of material to be covered on the exams and to create a guide as to what parts of the curriculum will and will not be included. 

Currently the two subjects being given the most significant facelift are United States History and Biology.  Since I have taught neither I will leave the evaluation of these alterations to those with more expertise in the curricula.  But as someone who taught math in the International Baccalaureate (IB) program for more than a decade and oversaw a department that participated in both programs for 26 years, I would like to comment on a few points concerning this overhaul.

The highest form of flattery

In general the changes that are being made appear to be designed to require more creative thinking by the students and allow teachers increased flexibility.  While I applaud these adaptations as positive steps, I also note that many of these new strategies have been employed by the IB program for years. There is, however, an IB tenet that is not being emulated.  One of the greatest strengths of the IB program has been the commitment to providing adequate class time for certain college-level courses that contain extensive and dense subject matter.  At my former school, when the change was made to become IB, the classes in Biology, Physics, and Calculus were taught over a two-year period.  This extended time allowed the teachers to present a course that was reflective of a college curriculum.  The new AP plan addresses this issue by reducing the material to be covered but does not extend class time.   While that approach may improve test scores, it will do little to ensure adequate coverage of the curriculum.  If the goal is to offer a college-level course taught with the rigor and expectations of an actual university class, it must be understood that a typical gifted high school student may need additional time in the more academically challenging areas. 

A personal complaint

There was one other troubling aspect of this article.  One public high school AP Biology teacher expressed concern about the addition of math concepts to the course.  According to the article this educator was worried that the new math requirements will discourage students from enrolling in the class.  I find this attitude very disturbing.  If the goal of an advanced program is to create academically well-rounded students, should the inclusion of basic statistical math be a reason for such concerns?  Is it unreasonable to expect a "college-level" science student to be able to use and understand such principles?  It is troubling to say the least that educators at this level may be incorporating their students’ potential aversion to math as part of the enrollment strategy. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:42 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent article in the “Washington Post”, Jay Mathews lamented his inability to obtain accurate information concerning the number of discipline referrals that were being issued in various school districts.  He discovered that for public relations purposes many systems refused to divulge such data.  He asked Mel Riddile for advice on how to obtain the information.  The response was simple—“Ask the teachers. They are the ones who can tell you what the discipline is like in a school.”

It seems so simple and yet…

Obtaining accurate information does not have to be complicated.   To find out what it is like to be a baggage handler, ask a person who handles baggage not a passenger on the plane.  When seeking a good recipe for chili, query an individual who has successfully cooked the dish not the one who has tasted it.  If the goal is to understand how to be a successful high school principal, ask Mel Riddile whose resume clearly demonstrates he had effectively led a high school for more than a decade.  And to gauge the educational environment at a school, talk to the teachers.

But while this approach may appear to be both prudent and logical it is not always the method utilized in making educational decisions. Too many of the people who make critical choices concerning schools are using the same stonewalling tactics that frustrated Mr. Mathews.

Why not go to the source?

Why then, if accurate, firsthand information comes from the source, are teachers often the last group consulted?  One cannot help but hypothesize that a truthful, honest reaction may not be the desired one.  Solving problems can be difficult and time consuming.

Early in his tenure as a principal Mel began using monthly department chair meetings as a forum for gathering information.  The responses that he received may have created additional work for his staff but they helped to mold more effective educational philosophies in the building.    For example, the head of the science department once informed him that her department could not maximize student performance until attendance improved, facilities were updated (the laboratories had not been renovated since the school opened 37 years earlier) and the students could read at or above grade level.  To varying degrees the other chairs agreed with her assessment.  Plans were soon implemented that in time would directly address the three issues.

A geometry teacher lamented to me that she could not get her weak students to come after school for the thirty minutes of extra help that could make the difference between passing and failing.  Not surprisingly she had discovered that the lure of a better grade was not sufficient motivation to outweigh the other more attractive options available to students at the conclusion of a day. In many schools such concerns are directed back at the teacher with the implication that new strategies are needed to better motivate their students.  But this query became the focal point of a wide-ranging conversation that was dominated by a group of classroom teachers—the department chairs.  The result was a school-wide remediation program involving students, teachers and administrators in a coordinated and effective plan that that resulted in significant student improvement.

A different kind of leadership model

Mutually emboldened by these successes Mel and the staff began a collaborative effort to reconstruct many of the other existing policies within the school.  The ordering of faculty supplies was an excellent example of this approach.  For decades every teacher had been given a specific amount of money to spend in the spring on classroom needs for the upcoming school year.  The negative ramifications of this system were legendary.  Faced with a one-time only opportunity to order, teachers were determined to spend all of their allotted money and then hoard materials in the fear that they would run out.  The workroom grumbling was rampant throughout the year.  With strong teacher input, a new method was designed based on the tenets of trust and necessity.  Throughout the year teachers could order what they needed when they needed it.  The mechanism was to complete a purchase order and submit it to their department chair, who would then consolidate items when appropriate and pass it on to the finance officer.   The results were astounding.  The school spent less money overall; teachers openly shared supplies; and staff morale soared.  Instead of being doled out an “allowance” like an adolescent, teachers were treated like professionals and responded in a similar manner.   

The same collaborative model was used in a variety of other situations.  The in-service week prior to the beginning of the year had always been an emotional tug-of-war between the teaching and administrative staffs.  A survey was conducted which indicated that many of the teachers had to spend significant amounts of personal time on weekends and evenings to prepare for the first day of classes.  With this data in hand and a list of the district’s expectations for the week, a committee of teachers was convened that developed a plan that met the needs of all involved. 

The formula is straightforward

Teachers are the only staff members in the building that are in the front-lines of educating students day in and day out. Collecting their input is essential to truly resolving educational problems in a building.  It is an approach that may take a few more minutes at the outset, but the solutions generated are guaranteed to improve both teacher and administrator morale.  Why?  Only when problems are correctly identified by the people who are experiencing them, can they be eliminated.  Collaborative problem solving between administrators and teachers makes sense because it works.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:17 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Nearly a year ago I wrote about the importance of little things in education.  These adjustments were minor, no-cost changes that could improve the academic environment of a school.  The discussion at that time focused on utilizing classrooms to minimize teacher movement, avoiding surprise disruptions in the daily schedule, balancing the size of the grading periods and limiting the number of teacher preparations. Recently, I have come to realize there may be a need to update the list. 

These colors do run

Throughout a school year, there are days that will be lost to special events.  One such occasion occurred at my former school the year after I retired.  Because Veterans Day was not a district holiday, an event was designed for parents to visit the building and have the opportunity to meet with teachers on a first-come, first served basis.  It was an overwhelming success. For more than three hours the entire staff assembled in the gymnasium and parents had the unique opportunity to have an in-depth discussion of the progress of their children.  The only problem with the program was its negative impact on classes. The school’s normal block schedule had alternating “red” (periods 1-3-5-7) and “blue” (2-4-5-6) days. (Fifth period was a daily, embedded lunch class)  Unfortunately, the regular red-blue-red schedule was kept in place and as a result the blue, parent’s day was an instructional loss.  Now facing what was in essence two consecutive red days the teachers had to make a difficult decision.  They could either do little on the second red day or have their blue day students fall behind. 

The need for such decisions could have been avoided.  The previous year when the November 11 date for this event was already established, a non-color day should have been planned that would include the parental meetings, lunch and a creative use of the remaining two hours.  November 10 would stay red, November 12 goes blue and everything remains orderly.  The fact that this was not the case the first year is understandable.  Adapting to new circumstances takes time.  What is not acceptable is to continue to fail to make the necessary corrections resulting in the same loss of class time year after year.

Someone needs to be paying attention

Every year there are a number of events such as this parent’s day, PSAT testing and special assemblies that severely impact class schedules.  Smaller activities including fire drills, class meetings, pep rallies and honor roll parties need to be considered as well.  The obvious solution is to anticipate and prepare for such educational disruptions. But in the fragmented world of the administrative staff where the job descriptions are multiple, diverse and often unexpected, dealing with these problems can be difficult.  At my school the solution was to have a staff member oversee all such concerns.  For more than a decade, fixing these educational potholes was a part of my workday.   Each spring I would look at the upcoming school calendar and find ways to lessen these conflicts.  During the school year, I would be asked to evaluate the timing of the smaller events.  Being a classroom teacher gave me the perspective to recognize potential trouble spots.  Then working with the administrative team, a viable solution would be created.             

One example of such planning was the “Multi-Cultural Awareness Assembly,” which was designed to celebrate the diversity of our student body.  The problem was that our auditorium could only seat half of the school and the program was lengthy.  Whatever day it was scheduled was going to be devoid of academics.  Consequently, we decided to present it on the last day before winter break.  Coming just before a long vacation, the loss of the teaching day was muted and more parents were able to attend.  Also, the faculty was advised of the plan well in advance and was given both a clear explanation of why these decisions had been made and an opportunity to give their own input. 

Similar cooperation was used to minimize the problems caused by mandatory fire drills.  The principal agreed to schedule these events in a manner to avoid an unbalanced impact on classes.  The school security officer and I would look at the monthly school calendar to choose the best dates and time.  For example, if a pep rally was going to shorten an afternoon blue day period, any drill that occurred during that time frame would be held in the morning of a red day.  Similar care was taken with Honor Roll parties, class meetings and other worthy but time-consuming events.  The effectiveness of any of these activities was never lessened.  The only item diminished was the negative impact on the overall educational process.

Not perfection, just a little bit better

Teachers are a prickly lot.  They do not like surprises, are angered by disruptions, and absolutely loath surprise disruptions.  The best believe time with their students is sacred.  There are, however, a number of very important activities within a school year that are not focused on the curriculum and will reduce class time.  The task is to find a way to blend all aspects of a school in a manner that maximizes the success of each individual endeavor while minimizing the negative impact on the whole. With a significant amount of advanced planning, cooperation and focus, approaches can be taken which will meet this challenge. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:44 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Recently the Washington Post ran an article featuring a high school sponsored poker club.  The article appeared to support the idea that poker clubs were a legitimate way to help students learn mathematical concepts. Although using the structure of poker to create a lesson in probability is a valid and effective technique; creating a club that is dedicated to playing poker and then claiming that it is academically suitable demonstrates extremely poor judgment on the part of the adults involved.     

Teaching the wrong things

When asked about the group, the principal of the school gave his support to the concept.  He told the Post:   

“We know the kids could play outside of school, but when they're here, we have the opportunity to show them how to play responsibly and to show them how the game relates to their education.”

While the rules of poker are based in large part on the laws of probability, teaching students how to play the game has far more to do with gambling than mathematics.  It was clear that the “math first” message was becoming obscured when posters advertising the club featuring pictures of poker playing dogs smoking cigarettes began to appear in the building.  The principal ordered them torn down.   This gesture eliminated the pictures but not the inherent problem.  

A very good teaching tool

When I taught probability to my pre-calculus students I regularly used poker hands as a portion of my lessons.  The standard deck of playing cards with its 13 different values, four suits and two colors presents unlimited possibilities for constructing problems and illustrations.  One of the classroom activities consisted of dividing the students into small groups to determine the probability of seven specific five-card poker hands.  After mathematically computing their answers, the results would be compared and the method for computing the correct probabilities was demonstrated.  The concluding activity was to rank the value of the hands correlated to the diminishing probability of their occurrence.  It was then determined that this student-created listing was exactly the same as the actual rules of the game.Instead of pulling out the poker chips after this worksheet was completed, the next step was to expand the understanding of the probability involved.  For example, it had been previously determined that the likelihood of having five cards and no matches was 50.7%; the chance that there would be one match was 42.3%.  It was now time to turn the process upside down.  If a person was given fourteen cards what were the chances of no matches?  The answer, of course, is zero since there are only thirteen different values. The follow up problem was how many cards must be dealt in order for it to be more likely to have a pair than to have no matches?”  (The answer is seven.  Variations of this question were given on the chapter test.)

While there were lengthy conversations about playing cards in my classes no deck was ever in the room.   We did not talk about any strategies for playing these games and most certainly would not encourage anyone to do so. The major point of emphasis was the purity of the mathematics involved. Because of their precision, these numbers have withstood the test of time in a game that has centuries of history. 

Sending the wrong message

Poker clubs designed with the alleged intent of teaching mathematics are found at colleges around the country.  The idea began at Harvard Law School.  There are, however, vast differences between the reasoning abilities of graduate students and those of high school students.  The high school math teacher who hosts the aforementioned club in his classroom speaks to the age difference, “The older kids realize that it's about odds and probability," he says, "the younger ones just want to win.”

High stakes gambling on poker has been glamorized on television and on the Internet.  Having teenagers play this game of chance and giving them any indication that they are becoming mathematically equipped to control outcomes is not only incorrect but potentially dangerous. 

Should educators be concerned about youth gambling?

The following are some conclusions from a study of 1000 randomly selected adolescents 13-17 years old by the Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation.   (Carlson & Moore, 1998)

• Seventy-five percent of teens in the study reported having gambled.
• One in ten teens was an at-risk gambler.
• Rates of problem gambling among youth were 2 to 4 times higher than the rates for adult gambling.
• Youth can hide gambling problems well.  There are no outward, physical signs.

The article in the Washington Post quoted one seventeen-year-old who had a large pile of chips in front of him as saying, “I don't know whether math class is helping me with poker, or whether poker is helping me with math.”  A very good question that I am not sure the adults at his school can answer.   

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:37 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Previously, Mel Riddile has asked whether there is a schism within high school faculties as a result of the continual emphasis on standardized testing.   He quotes a teacher who believes there is such a problem—the core teachers feel they are receiving an unfair level of scrutiny while the non-core believe they are being ignored. 

A perfect storm of discontent  

There is little doubt that the public spotlight is squarely on a school’s standardized test scores and the teachers whose students produce them.  Schools are accredited, ranked, and publically evaluated based on the results of a few tests in a limited number of subjects.  Virtually every conversation concerning teacher evaluation begins, and too often ends, with a desire to use student test scores as a major component. With the misguided encouragement of educational leaders some newspapers have ranked teachers based on their students’ results. Virtually every discussion of merit pay includes student scores as a primary consideration.

It is not surprising that this fixation on certain numbers has split teaching staffs into two separate camps.  The pressure on those who are responsible for tested classes is immense and often oppressive.  As it ratchets up during the year, these teachers become increasingly resentful of their colleagues who do not have to deal with similar issues.  Intensifying these sentiments is the irony that so much attention is being given to a group that represents less than one third of a typical high school staff.

These ingredients result in the great disconnect within the teaching community.  If test results are a must in evaluation and merit pay, what does that say about those who do not produce such scores?  Many teachers are forced to ask some tough questions.  Do policymakers mistakenly believe that all educators produce such scores?   Or worse, do they feel that creating an evaluation for those teachers is not a critical concern?  Likewise, should they be excluded from merit pay consideration?  Regardless of the reasons, the message they hear is clear—if you do not create standardized test data within your classroom, you are relegated to a lesser status.

This educational caste system gets worse.  It turns out that not all standardized tests scores are equal.  NCLB focuses on only the results of math and English exams.  The exclusion of science and social studies from this mandate places the teachers of those subjects in a difficult position. While they have the same curriculum pressures as math and English colleagues, their work is clearly not considered as important. The state of Virginia has affirmed this stance.  While a score of 400 on the end-of-course exams is required for a “pass”, the state established a special policy for students in the two non-NCLB curricula—if a student takes the exam twice and scores at least 375 on one of the attempts, they are eligible for a “locally verified credit”.  The teacher and school are still charged with a failing score but a student who has mastered less than 35% of the material is declared successful. 

No cures but some ways to help

While it is impossible for any school to totally alter the educational culture, there are steps that can be taken to lessen the chasm between core and non-core teachers.  As Dr. Riddile noted in his post, the implementation of a literacy program at his school was woven into the entire curriculum.  This approach was the result of both necessity and design.  In order to be successful, this initiative needed to be incorporated into all subjects rather than implemented by the English department alone.  By asking every discipline to embed literacy into all of their classroom activities, staff members had an equal stake in a critically important program.  Every meeting, email or memo in regards to this program was appropriate for the entire staff.

The school took a number of additional steps to mitigate this problem.  The goal of each of these concepts was simple—demonstrate to all teachers that every class was important.  These included:

The end of year testing schedule did not negatively impact non-tested classes. Many schools adopted testing schedules that would involve massive disruptions to all classes for an extended period of time.  Considering that more than two thirds of the classes in our building did not have end-of-course exams such an approach was deemed to be unacceptable.  Our test schedule was designed to ensure that every class would meet during the entire testing window.  The length of the periods would be altered to allow appropriate time for the exams but no class was lost.  Also since testing was done within the period the subject was taught, no students were pulled from other rooms to test. 

Discussions of SOL (state assessment) issues were limited to staff members who were directly affected.  At department chair meetings, the core department chairs would meet as a group after the conclusion of the topics pertaining to all subjects.  Likewise, faculty meetings were focused on topics of general interest.

Another possible solution

Authentic success in almost any endeavor is the result of an outstanding team effort.  Improvement in standardized test score is no exception.  Why not acknowledge this achievement as a school-wide effort?  Instead of awarding merit pay to individual teachers whose students exceed certain standards, a practice that can cause divisions within a staff, reward the entire school when the student body attains prescribed benchmarks.  Either give a bonus to all staff members or make the award in the form of extra funding for the school and its programs.   While such an approach would not end all friction among teachers, it would certainly be a good starting point.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:04 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Imagine a principal and a high school with strong academic credentials. Together over the past few years they have demonstrated significant improvement in state mandated standardized tests.  The motives of the principal have never been in question. Teachers in the school feel that the principal “really cares about kids and has a great big heart for them.” How does a school like the one described above end up in “The Washington Post”, not because it has a team that is competing for a state championship, a teacher nominated for a national award or a student body raising record amounts for charity, but due to grading policy changes?   The principal’s odyssey began with an October announcement that he had banned the use of the letter “F” on first quarter report cards.  Within days it continued with a memo that announced another new initiative at the school—penalty free retests for students who had been caught cheating.   The media nightmare hopefully ended when an email was sent to the community stating that all of the programs had been cancelled. All of these policy changes were carried out in the full glare of the media.  There was even an editorial that referred to the new grading policy as a “gimmick”.  The most glaring problem, however, was not the specific proposals but rather a faulty vision of school leadership.    

 A failure to communicate

The main culprit in this episode was a fundamental lack of communication between the principal and his staff.  One person, regardless of his position, cannot make decisions as precedent shattering as allowing unlimited incompletes and retests for cheaters without significant input from a wide variety of individuals.  Any hope of an effective implementation is lost when such changes are announced with no advance notice or discussion.  Using email weeks into the school year raises more questions about the style of a leader when the conversation should be on the substance.

There is far more at stake for this principal than merely the rollback of his initiatives.  Successful leadership is predicated on vision, communication and the respect of your constituency.  In the world of sports, most coaches who are fired are indicted with the statement “they lost the locker room”.  Politicians are voted out of office when public confidence erodes in their ability to lead.  The principal in question here is in a similar position.  By failing to effectively communicate with his faculty and community he is placing their loyalty and support in jeopardy.  

A critical requirement

For principals to avoid this situation they must bring their faculties into conversations in the planning stages.  The desire to limit the number of students receiving a grade of “F” is not only noble; it is a shared pursuit by both the administrative and teaching staffs.  Though a solution may be elusive, an effective timetable to address this problem would be easy to construct.  A diverse committee of teachers, administrators and parents could have been convened in March.  Lively and informative discussions would ensue for two months.  In May a proposal would be presented to the faculty.  After encouraging discussion and further input another committee would finalize the wording over the summer.  A formal plan would be sent to all staff members several weeks prior to the opening of school with a notation that it would be the focal point of a faculty meeting during the in-service week. 

This plan will not work unless the principal is committed to ensuring that all of these conversations are open, honest and ongoing.  Everyone who is contributing ideas must believe that their opinions are being given substantial consideration.  This path is not about “safety in numbers” or “seeking cover”.   The key element is that involving the views of the people directly affected by a decision is always beneficial.  Ultimately the teachers will be the individuals who will be on the front lines using any such new proposed policies.  Roadblocks will develop unless the parents understand and support the changes.  

A formula for success…and support

Such an approach is neither simple nor easy.   No leader is completely comfortable when relinquishing significant control. But making that strategic decision will produce more accurate information and a smoother implementation. It will also enhance staff morale and the image of the school in the community.  Clearly this approach is vastly superior to having the arguments, accusations, and finger-pointing playing out in the Washington Post.   

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:43 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Winston Churchill may have defined it best.  “Success,” according to the former British Prime Minister, “is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.”  As his country’s leader in the midst of a world-wide conflict, it is clear that he understood the critical importance of realistic appraisals.  Unfortunately, the prevailing philosophy in the upper echelons of the educational hierarchy does not share that view.  In schools throughout the country there are escalating efforts to avoid giving failing grades to under-performing students.  The problem with these approaches is that most are more focused on eliminating the appearance of the letter “F” on report cards than on finding approaches to improve actual student performance.  Such grading is not a zero sum game.  Barring teachers from giving valid feedback to failing students does not automatically result in a proportional gain in student knowledge acquisition.  To the contrary there is growing evidence that such manipulations are having the opposite effect.  Jay Mathews in the Washington Post explained how Montgomery County (MD) has found yet another method to avoid giving students an accurate assessment of their poor classroom performance. 

Framing the argument

Long considered one of the elite school systems in the country, Montgomery County Public Schools has legitimate reason to be concerned about the performance of their high school students.  According to Mathews, “The SAT and Advanced Placement results, put out so proudly by the Montgomery County school system, suggest that it is among the best districts in the country, but the county has seen no significant increase in math or reading achievement for 17-year-olds in 30 years.”

Dan Stephens, a math teacher in the district for twenty years, has a relatively simple explanation for the cause of that stagnation.  He believes that too many of his students are convinced that regardless of what they do in the classroom, they will still graduate. One of the primary reasons for this attitude according to Stephens is a final exam written and mandated by the county.  The tests are given in every core subject and are allowed to constitute as much as 25% of a student’s final grade.  The problem revolves around a decision that MCPS like many other groups had made concerning the percentage value of a failing grade.   No matter how poorly students may perform on these tests the lowest allowable score is 50%.  "The majority of my pre-calculus students”, says Stephens, “have never passed one of these exams in either Algebra 1, geometry or Algebra 2, all pre-calculus prerequisites. Nevertheless, they proceeded to the next level. . . . Students are well aware that failure, even pathetic failure, will not prevent them from going on to the next level. Most of my students have failed multiple final exams in other subjects as well, but they still earned credit for those classes.”

Even the most ardent supporters of the “50% conversion rule” have to accept the reality of this potential negative outcome.  However, regardless of any damage to student motivation, a growing number of schools are gravitating toward this approach as the best avenue to student success.

The problem is in the numbers

The main impetus for arbitrarily raising poor grades is the misguided belief that low failing scores can be overly punitive.  At first glance this assumption can appear to have validity.  Using a typical grading scale of 90-100 as A, 80-89 for B, 70-79 C, 60-69 D and below 60 as an F, it would appear that a score of 22% would unfairly skew the overall average.  Unquestionably a 22% would have considerably more negative impact than a 50%.  The follow-up argument makes some superficial sense.  If the other four grades have a ten-point range, why should the “F” have one of sixty?  Does that give a low “F” too much impact? 

Even if one accepts this premise there is still a nagging issue of fairness. One student works diligently to prepare for a test and earns a 58%.  Another who does little or nothing receives a well deserved grade of 22%.  After that grade is changed to 50%, is this a fair outcome for the dedicated student?  But this argument is usually trumped when someone trots out the traditional closing equation—three 100s (A) and one zero (F) average out to a 75 (C).  While this argument often ends the discussion it is not mathematically persuasive. 

It is all in the paradigm

 To understand the flaw in the “50% solution” it is necessary to re-evaluate how the grading scale is interpreted.  When assessing a student’s score on an assignment there are two potential outcomes.  A result of 60-100 is passing while one from 0-59 is failing.  When comparing these two potential options the disparity in size has diminished considerably.  The real difference is that in our traditional grading system we have designated four distinct grades for success and only one for failure.  To make the two categories parallel different levels of failure would have to be introduced—G for 40-49, H 30-39, etc.   While such a change would be of little actual value it does bring into perspective the overriding problem with ignoring poor grades.

What happens if passing scores were handled in a manner similar to failing ones?  Any grade below 90 (ten points below the highest possible score) would be converted to 90.  Thus a 92% would be unchanged but scores of 82%, 76% or 65% would be recast as 90.  The argument in favor of this fictitious approach would be “It is not fair to saddle a student with a 62%—that would make it almost impossible to earn an A.”  Clearly such a plan would be both unfair and unacceptable.  No one would argue that a student who receives a grade of 65% should be given equal status to one who worked to earn an 87%.  And yet we are implementing programs that are using precisely the same philosophy in the failure area of the grading scale. 

Unfortunately these arguments will have little impact on educational decision-makers.  They will continue with various plans such as requiring the use of a 0-4 scale for averaging grades (A=4, C=2, F=0) and the “50% conversion”.  The reason these policies will continue is because they are designed to cosmetically make student performance appear to be better.  Such superficial solutions will only result in thirty more years of negligible improvement.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Little children do it all the time.  When playing “hide and go seek” they cover their eyes with their hands and firmly believe they have become invisible.  When my grandchildren do this I find it adorable.  When a school does the educational equivalent in order to make failing grades disappear I am not amused.  But just such a plan is being implemented at a large suburban high school (2,000 students) in the Washington D.C. area.  According to Donna St. George in the Washington Post:

“The dreaded F has been all but banished from the grade books (at this school). The report cards that arrived home late last week showed few failing grades but instead marks of "I" for incomplete, indicating that students still owe their teachers essential work. They will get Fs only if they fail to complete assignments and learn the content in the months to come.”

The plan, which was announced in a letter sent to the parents in October of the current school year, places all of the pressure for implementation squarely on the classroom teacher.  Ms. St. George continues:

“Now, the thinking goes, learning will trump grading. The emphasis is on what students know. Teachers, working as a team, will be on duty more afternoons and Saturdays. They will be mentors, too. If students fail to finish work to clear up "incompletes," they may have to attend a last-chance summer session.”

By some measures the program is already a huge success.  At the end of the first grading period there were virtually no failures at the school.  On the other hand there were 600 scores of “I”. One sophomore English teacher reported more than half of her students were in such a status and added, "I don't believe it's an extra chance. It's an out. The root problem is motivation. The root problem is not that we're not teaching them."

Bring on the talking heads

One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion is the clarity of the battle lines.  In the article the primary sources of opposition came from students, teachers and parents.  In fact, not a single member of any of those groups offered up a supporting voice.  The advocates were the school’s principal, the district’s superintendent for instruction and a series of outside advisors whose credentials are listed as “grading experts”. Perhaps the most intriguing and disturbing endorsement came from the district instructional leader.  He said “If we really want students to know and do the work, why would we give them an F and move on? . . . I think the students who are struggling should not be penalized for not learning at the same rate as their peers.”  The first part of his statement is an insult to teachers.  Educators do not issue failing grades to students and then simply “move on”.  When asked which of their students receive the most time and energy any teacher will respond “the weakest”.  The second part of his comment is both misguided and ironic.  The issue being addressed is missed assignments not a lack of time.  His concern with time is particularly baffling since this individual is part of the establishment that was adamantly opposed to the double block classes that were implemented at my former school.

Let me count the ways

I would like to present my concerns with this policy in the form of a list of the most flagrant flaws.

This policy demonstrates a lack of understanding of adolescents.   A large number of students will do the right thing. Unfortunately these are not the individuals who are the focus of this discussion.  For far too many teenagers an announcement at the beginning of the year that late work will be accepted with no deadlines or grade repercussions is an open invitation for very bad decision making.  By nature human beings are procrastinators (check out the post office on April 15th); for many high school students such behavior is an art form.  What these adolescents need for success is structure and rules not vague requirements and inappropriate rewards. 

This policy will place teachers under enormous pressure.    Successful students will also present uncomfortable decisions for teachers.  One component of the policy is that if students “master” material a teacher has the “discretion” to assign a “NM” (no mark) for missing quizzes or assignments.  Due to this administrative directive students can now lobby teachers to disregard missing work without penalty.

This policy will cost schools good teachers.   A plan that enables students to submit unlimited amounts of late work at any time during the school year is a formula for turning a teacher’s job into a bureaucratic nightmare.  In this brave new educational world our best and brightest will no longer be able to set firm deadlines on required work.  They will be denied the ability to give inferior work appropriate grades.  Instead of using time to lesson plan and work with all students, they will be mentoring intractable students after school, Saturdays and in the summer.  Would it surprise anyone if they departed for other opportunities that would better utilize their talents?

This policy is unfair.  While I do not know all of the intricacies of the plan it would appear that students who do all of their work at a 58% level (setting 60% as passing) will receive an “F” while those who do little or nothing will be given an “I”.  Likewise, those who do reasonably good work but because of one or two missed assignments have an aggregate grade of “C” will have that mark on their report card while students who would fail because of the same missed work will have the “I”. 

This policy will ultimately hurt student performance.   Information learned in the first quarter of the school year is the foundation for what will be taught in the second.  This sequence continues throughout the course.  Classes move forward every day.  It is disingenuous to imply that by giving a grade of “I” that all that needs to be done to remain on track to succeed is to complete a few missing assignments.  While those issues are being retroactively addressed, students will fall further and further behind.   

This policy ignores that quarter grades are only guidelines. The only grades that appear on a transcript are the ones given at the conclusion of a course.  Consequently an “F” on a report card is designed to serve as a warning to students and parents that if the current level of performance continues there is a strong possibility of failing the course.   A grade of “I” can convey a very different and inaccurate message. There are a few other questions that spring to mind.  What is the plan for senior semester grades if they have grades of “I”?  How is second semester athletic eligibility determined?  How does an “I” work in calculating GPA or the Honor Roll?  But these are minor points when dealing with a school-wide “head in the sand” approach to failing students. 

Students fail when required work is done either poorly or not at all.  The best solution is to demand that all such assignments are done well and in a timely manner.  Downgrading the importance of such efforts by extending or deleting deadlines may ultimately create an artificial reduction in the number of failures but it will not create more learning.     

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:08 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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In any conversation about education, the views of Bill Gates should be given serious consideration.  Unlike many of the other high profile people engaged in this ongoing discussion, his thoughts are not influenced by any professional involvement.  Gates does not have a job description to fulfill as does Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  He does not have to speak for teachers like Randi Weingarten.  He is not a politician, has no profit motive, or even a former career in education to protect.  What he does have is a sincere interest, a powerful commitment and the necessary resources to make competent judgments on the subject.  Consequently when I saw an article about him in a recent issue of Parade Magazine I decided it was a must read.  One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion was his opinion of the qualities of a good teacher.    

Simple but compelling

When asked why there are so many bad teachers and not enough great ones in American public schools Gates replied:

“Very little is invested in understanding great teaching. We've never had a meaningful evaluation system that identifies the dimensions of great teachers so we can transfer the skills to others. The Gates Foundation has learned that two questions can predict how much kids learn: ‘Does your teacher use class time well?’ and, ‘When you're confused, does your teacher help you get straightened out’?”

I found the two questions posed by the Gates Foundation very intriguing.  In my experience with teacher evaluations, the process was exclusively top down – in other words, from the perspective of the teachers and administrators. There would be an evaluator who solicits information from the teacher such as classroom goals and objectives.  This person then attends classes to observe what activities or actions actually do occur.  The evaluation concludes with a discussion of the relevant information with the teacher. 

The Foundation questions, on the other hand, were from the viewpoint of the classroom consumer—the student.  And based on their research the responses were strong indicators of the level of student learning.  Since this outcome is the ultimate goal of education it would seem that some use of this resource would be appropriate.  While student input cannot replace the evaluation process, it could bring into the procedure a group of individuals who have a unique perspective on the work of the teacher. Though the two questions mentioned by Gates are very simple, they have proven to be a strong indicator of student learning.  Expanding on those inquiries might provide a method to define the basic ingredients of successful teaching.  Below I have incorporated them into a ten-part student questionnaire. 

1. Does your teacher use class time well?  (Gates)
2. When you are confused, does your teacher help you get straightened out?  (Gates)
3. Do you believe that your teacher wants you to succeed?
4. Do you think the teacher is fair and consistent?
5. Does your teacher have a broad knowledge of the subject?
6. Does your teacher sincerely care about the subject?
7. Do you believe your teacher enjoys teaching?
8. Do you feel that your teacher will spend extra time to ensure that you learn?
9. Do you look forward to going to this class?
10. Do you listen to what is being said by the teacher during class?

My question for you is this—what should be added to or subtracted from this list?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The problem with driving around in circles is that while you put a great deal of mileage on the odometer, you end up right back where you started.  For many of the math students in Montgomery County, MD, that now seems to be the case.  After years of striving to increase the percentage of students taking Algebra 1 prior to high school, the educational leaders in that district are having some serious second thoughts. This rethinking was on full display in an article by Michael Birnbaum in the Washington Post:

“Montgomery County long has pushed its students to take ever-more-challenging math at ever-younger ages. Now educators will back off in the hope that more time and depth with the basics will yield payoffs in high school and beyond, school officials said Thursday.”

Frieda Lacey, Deputy Superintendent was even more specific. “Some students were placed in classes, and perhaps they weren't as prepared as they should have been.”  Ms. Lacey added that the push by the county for math acceleration had been an “overreaction”.

Most of these changes are the result of the work by a panel of parents, educators and researchers who studied the math program in the county.  Birnbaum writes, “The report said that efforts to increase access to high-level classes ‘effectively removed sorting and selecting practices based on assumptions about ability,’ meaning that too many students were being accelerated routinely.”

If only they had listened

Teachers and parents initiated this new perspective--opposing rushing students into Algebra 1.  According to Birnbaum, “The change comes as high school teachers were increasingly saying that even their advanced students were arriving in class unprepared. Parents wondered why their children needed to take advanced classes that often required outside tutoring. School officials said more than half of fifth-graders are taking sixth-grade math or higher.”

There is actually a simple explanation as to why schools find themselves with this dilemma.  The main advocates for accelerating math were district educational leaders with scant if any input from teachers.  In 2005, I sat in a district K-12 math department chair meeting and sighed as I heard the system’s math coordinator proudly tout in a power point “The District’s goal is to have 100% of our students take Algebra 1 by the eighth grade.” Based on my lunch conversations with my colleagues that day I can report that the teachers sitting in that room did not share this enthusiasm for the plan.  Of course no one had ever asked for their thoughts on the proposal.

If someone had solicited that advice they would have heard exactly the same comments that are now being spoken five years later in Montgomery County.  For years school districts throughout the country have had an overly simplistic solution for lagging math performance—place younger and younger students into courses entitled Algebra 1.   The advantage of this approach when compared with the revised path now being considered by MCPS, which includes putting more rigor into elementary and middle school math and more careful recommendations, is that it is far less complicated and nuanced. 

It is much easier to implement an “every student in our district will be enrolled in Algebra 1 before high school” policy and makes for a much catchier sound bite. It is important to note that the concept of advancing students in math is not the flaw in this plan.  There are, of course, a significant number of students who should be taking more difficult classes earlier.  Preventing them from accelerating their math studies would be wrong.  But for those who are not appropriately prepared either in terms of background or maturity, the primary outcome of this “sink or swim” approach is academic drowning.  Unfortunately, this experience leaves most of these individuals with a negative attitude toward math and in some cases school in general which will limit their success in future courses. 

In addition classes with many students who are not academically prepared results in an inferior course for everyone.  For many years our feeder middle school placed the top 50% of the eighth grade into “honors” Algebra 1.  The bottom half would take the class in the ninth grade.   Despite what was a huge disparity in mathematical talent, the scores of the two groups on identical Algebra 1 Standards of Learning (SOL) exams were statistically the same (472 vs. 469).  Not surprisingly just as was found in Montgomery County, many of these “honors” students struggled in subsequent honors-level math classes. 

Some things cannot be undone

As a mathematician I use data to reinforce many of my educational arguments.  While these statistics can be accurate, powerful and informative they do come with one very large caveat.  Those data points are not just test scores or grades.  Each one represents a student whose future can be predicated on the quality of the education they receive.  The tragedy is that every time one of those bits of information is utilized to demonstrate a tactical mistake in instruction, a child’s future is in peril. While bad policies can be studied, reevaluated over time and eventually revoked, for those whose education has been compromised by such misguided beliefs there is no do-over available. 

School leaders who design their programs to enhance their power point presentations have their priorities terribly misaligned.  Policy makers must remember that, in education, faster is not always better; fancier is rarely more effective; and any policy that demands the inclusion of everyone is almost certainly doomed to failure.  Breathing and eating are required for 100% of students.  After those two, the “must do” list is very limited.  

I applaud the changes that are being made in Montgomery County.  I wish more school districts would put their math programs under such scrutiny.  Unfortunately much of the pain that is being felt there and other places could have been lessened if teachers had been brought into the conversation earlier.  While the information that is received from the front lines may not always be what the people in charge want to hear, it is often the most accurate.  Too many poor educational decisions have been made without the direct participation and influence of teachers.  The victims of such missteps are the students. They deserve better.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Over the course of my forty-year teaching career, which included twenty-six years as a department chair,  and ten as Curriculum Coordinator, I worked with a significant number of school administrators and district leaders. This is the third in a series highlighting those individuals who in my opinion were the most effective in their particular roles.  The goal of these analyses is to illuminate those qualities that make professionals in these critical positions successful and maximize their positive influence in a school.

I had the good fortune to work with a number of extremely talented assistant principals.  Many moved on in their careers to become successful principals at either middle or high schools.  A few rose to the superintendent level in other districts.  I also interacted with many individuals who were lacking in either the skills or the experiences required to be productive.  Though they made my vocational life more difficult at the time, the shortcomings of these individuals allowed me to better understand and appreciate the strengths of the effective APs.

Due to the large number of excellent administrators I encountered, I have the wonderful dilemma of trying to parse out which one was the best.  As an indication of my good fortune, I have found that to be an impossible task.  Consequently, with apologies to many other worthy candidates, I believe that two individuals, David Smith and Cordell Gill best embodied the personal talents and skills necessary to be outstanding assistant principals and have a positive impact on both the math department and the school.

What attributes made them the most effective assistant principals?

The role of an Assistant Principal is very different from that of the Director of Guidance or Instructional Coordinator.  Both of those positions have a very specific focus, the students and master schedule for the former and a single curriculum for the latter.  In contrast Assistant Principals must be multi-taskers.  They must provide discipline, supervise multiple curriculums, evaluate teachers, and contribute to school policy, in addition to miscellaneous jobs ranging from hall duty to planning graduation.  Consequently their success cannot be explained with a list of specific personal qualities that produced effectiveness as was done for the previous “bests”.  For this position excellence is found in the mindset they took to their role.

In both casual and formal situations, Dave and Cordell never envisioned their position as one with an elevated status—neither perceived himself as owning a seat at “the head of the table” in a room full of teachers.  Their vision of the job of an Assistant Principal was not to give orders or make unilateral decisions.  Rather they saw their basic role as assisting teachers to perform more effectively. They listened.  To that end they solicited the needs and concerns of teachers and department chairs then worked in a collaborative manner to find solutions.  They realized that teachers were not interchangeable parts.  Each one possessed unique strengths and weaknesses that needed to be either nurtured or mitigated. 

Unfortunately this approach is not always the norm.  One of the most corrosive relationships that can be created in a school is a “we vs. they” mentality between the teaching and administrative staffs.  I once heard an AP tell a teacher who questioned one of his decisions concerning a student, “I find it hard to believe that a teacher would not simply follow the directive of an administrator.”  Another explained to a department chair, “Your role is to implement the policies of the administration”.  Such attitudes, which occur far too often, are one of the primary sources of low teacher morale. 

In a perfect educational world every department would be supervised by someone who is qualified to teach in that area.  While that situation can make an AP even more effective, in most cases it is not the reality.  Both Dave and Cordell had a narrow view of their role in determining curriculum policy.  They reserved such decisions for those who were certified in the subject area.   They understood that their area of expertise was in creating the best possible educational climate in the building, not in determining what topics were to be taught in each individual room or which teacher should be teaching a specific class.  They offered their services in a reactive manner—as someone who was a willing listener who would give suggestions and advice when solicited or necessary.   

To attain educational success there must be strong classroom management. Dave and Cordell understood that certain students could “highjack” the education of others.  When dealing with such individuals they sent a powerful and consistent message—such conduct will not be tolerated.  Both worked in a positive manner with all the involved parties.  They were always “pro-teacher” when working with the students.  When informing teachers of the outcomes they would become “pro-student” explaining in detail any circumstances that may not have been previously revealed.             

Like every great Assistant Principal I worked with I viewed these two men as my allies never as adversaries.  They handled every situation in a professional and even-handed manner. They approached all personal interactions whether with students or teachers with an open mind.  Most importantly they saw themselves as a person working behind the scenes to make the school better.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:01 PM | Permalink

By Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The articles tell two totally different stories but ultimately coalesce around one basic conclusion.  The first was in the Washington Post by Jay Mathews entitled “Curiosity is banned at Westfield High”.  Mr. Mathews chronicled the “Expectations of Integrity” adopted by three AP World History teachers at Westfield HS in Fairfax County, Virginia.  This manifesto on research included:

"You are only allowed to use your OWN knowledge, your OWN class notes, class handouts, your OWN class homework, or The Earth and Its Peoples textbook to complete assignments and assessments UNLESS specifically informed otherwise by your instructor.''

Other than some overly dramatic capitalization the rules seemed reasonable enough.  However Mr. Mathews also noted:

“Students could not use anything they found on the Internet. They were not permitted even to discuss their assignments with friends, classmates, neighbors, parents, relatives or siblings.

Mr. Mathews then asked:

“What about complete strangers? The teachers had thought of that. ‘You may not discuss/mention/chat/hand signal/smoke signal/Facebook/IM/text/email to a complete stranger ANY answers/ideas/questions/thoughts/opinions/hints/instructions.’ The words were playful, but the teachers were serious. Any violations, they said, would mean a zero on the assignment and an honor code referral.”

I had two immediate reactions to these revelations.  First, I was very interested in learning what compelling experiences had led these teachers to such drastic rules.  Unfortunately they opted not to explain them.  Secondly, and more importantly, this extreme approach to educational research revealed a profound problem with utilizing information available in today’s world.

Ironically, the presumed argument made by these teachers– that use of the Internet or collaboration is inferior to class notes and textbooks - was substantiated a few days later in the discovery of some troubling facts presented in a book being used by fourth-graders in Virginia.  This state-approved text contained a portion stating that thousands of slaves fought for the Confederacy.  According to the Washington Post, this assertion which has been discounted by the vast majority of scholars on the subject was the result of some shoddy research.

“The author, Joy Masoff, who is not a trained historian but has written several books, said she found the information about black Confederate soldiers primarily through Internet research, which turned up work by members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.”

Another issue concerning a misidentified breed of bear brought further questions about the accuracy of Ms. Masoff investigative skills.  

The critical component that ties these stories together is the revelation of a significant educational problem that needs to be addressed—preparing our students to perform accurate and meaningful research in the twenty-first century.

A serious problem requires a serious response

If a published author of school materials has difficulty navigating the information highway, how can we expect better from our students?  Banning all use of the Internet, arguably the most powerful research tool ever created, is certainly not the answer.  Nor will one-hour presentations by school librarians create Internet savvy students in 2010.  What is needed is a serious commitment of time and energy to ensure that we create the skills necessary to harness the immense power of the technology that is now available.

When I was in middle school every student was required to take a twelve-week course in typing.  I hated every minute of the class.  By week three I had grown to despise typing “the quick gray fox jumped over the lazy brown dog”.  But despite all of my fourteen-year-old anger the ultimate result of that course was that I had acquired a skill that would prove to be a critical asset throughout my life.

Today there is a compelling need to have a similar approach to research.  All students in the early portion of their secondary education should be enrolled in a class designed to teach them to both effectively utilize the information available and to discriminate between what is valid and what is not. 

What would such a class look like?

Though I am not a research expert, I could envision a course that was taught within the following parameters.  It would be conducted in a computer lab giving all students access to the Internet.  The first few weeks would focus on the fundamentals—learning to use the various tools available for research.  After those skills are mastered, students would undertake projects in a variety of disciplines.  For two weeks they could accumulate materials on a topic based in social studies.  The next project would be dedicated to scientific research.  One of the primary responsibilities of the teacher would be to demonstrate the unique approaches that are required for the two different subject areas.  These projects would be reviewed, graded and discussed for their strengths and weaknesses.  There would then be additional assignments exploring everything from literature to foreign language to math to artistic interpretation.  The possible subjects are unlimited and would require a constantly changing set of research skills.  Participants should be given the opportunity to work alone, in groups and with experts who have been contacted in the course of their investigations. 

A boatload of good outcomes

Such a serious commitment to the study of research—a graded class with a fulltime teacher—will reinforce for the students the importance of being able to judge the quality and accuracy of information.   In addition for an eighth or ninth grader the in-depth study of all of those different subjects will be a great introduction to the high school curriculum.  Meanwhile high school teachers could be given intense in-service sessions designed to strengthen their own research abilities.  Armed with this knowledge, when these educators make assignments that necessitate research in their high school courses, they would be able to reinforce the skills their students have previously acquired. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I have to admit I am not sure where to begin.  Like most math teachers, I have spent a good deal of my adult life defending the relevance of my subject to students, parents and other educators.  I have observed the popular culture ridicule math in advertising; television shows and political speeches. How many times have you heard someone say, “Well of course I can’t do that, I was never very good at math.”  But I never fathomed that I would have to defend the study of the subject to a college math professor. 

It actually took me three readings of a recent Washington Post op-ed to get a handle on what the author was trying to say.  The first reading left me confused—is this perhaps a “Modest Proposal” for math? After the second reading, I became slack-jawed in stunned disbelief.  On the third run through I reached critical mass—these were clearly the most amazing assortment of negative statements ever attributed to a mathematician   The object of this extended reading session was the op-ed in the Washington Post by University of Illinois at Chicago Math Professor G.V. Ramanathan. His primary position was to question whether there was any value for studying mathematics.  The argument begins by comparing the process of learning math to superficial improvements to one’s appearance.   

“…the marketing of math has become similar to the marketing of creams to whiten teeth, gels to grow hair and regimens to build a beautiful body.”

Professor Ramanathan adds:

“A lot of effort and money has been spent to make mathematics seem essential to everybody's daily life. There are even calculus textbooks showing how to calculate -- I am not making this up and in fact I taught from such a book -- the rate at which the fluid level in a martini glass will go down, assuming, of course, that one sips differentiably (sic). Elementary math books have to be stuffed with such contrived applications; otherwise they won't be published.”

Technically, I do agree with this particular point. The use of fluid level in a martini glass does seem a bit contrived.  But what is the harm in trying to make an abstract discipline like mathematics more relevant to students using at least a million other, more appropriate, examples to illustrate the importance of the subject.  Professor Ramanathan continues his questionable argument with the following:

“Unlike literature, history, politics and music, math has little relevance to everyday life.  ...Most adults have no contact with math at work, nor do they curl up with an algebra book for relaxation.”

These statements cry out for a response.

Ignorance is not really bliss

I have not read anything by Shakespeare in decades.  I did, however, learn much about human nature through the study of his work.  These are lessons I still use in my life.  I cannot recite the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence.  Would I be a better citizen if I had never studied them?  I cannot recall ever using the principles of photosynthesis in my daily conversations.  But I do believe I am enhanced by possessing an understanding of the interrelationship between myself and the plant world.  Is math so much different than these subjects?

What is the value of a well-informed decision?

Professor Ramanathan’s primary contention is that there is little use for math for most people. 

“How much math do you really need in everyday life? Ask yourself that -- and also the next 10 people you meet, say, your plumber, your lawyer, your grocer, your mechanic, your physician or even a math teacher.”

I beg to differ.  First of all, every one of those occupations mentioned are constantly using math whether it is to correlate measurements, determine the proper equipment, adjust dosage, or establish prices.  More importantly mathematics is one of the most powerful tools anyone can wield when attempting to understand and interpret information.  I could go on for fifteen or more pages condemning all of the professor’s contentions.  I could bludgeon his arguments using numerous illustrations of his folly.  But in lieu of all that verbiage, I will summarize my arguments using one example of the power of mathematics as a tool for understanding the world.

A few weeks ago Brian Williams on the NBC Nightly News reported on a recent study of breast cancer and the use of hormone replacement in women.  The numbers were ominous.  After extensive research it was determined that a woman’s chances of having breast cancer would increase by 25% if she was on hormone therapy.  A 25% increase in just about anything is huge.  If your mortgage goes up by that much, foreclosure will soon follow.  Similar growth in dropout rates, unemployment, violent crime, tuition, or auto accidents would be an automatic cause for alarm.  But is an increase of 25% in the potential for a woman contracting breast cancer cause for the same degree of apprehension?  Let’s do the math.

With a little research it was determined that the number of women in the general population who develop breast cancer is 0.4%.  That number increases to 0.5% for those who use hormone replacement which is an increase of 25%.  (Divide the increase of 0.1 by 0.4.) Four-tenths of a percent translates into four women out of every 1000.  Five-tenths of a percent means that the number stricken with the disease will grow to five.  Consequently, as the direct result of hormone replacement, the increased chance of having breast cancer is one in a thousand.  Does this interpretation of the information make the correct decision obvious or easier?  Absolutely not, but it does give an enhanced perspective to the reality of the situation.   

This analysis did not take an understanding of calculus, differential equations or advanced statistics.  It simply took a solid grounding in basic mathematics.  The same process could be used to evaluate airline tickets (free baggage vs. fees), home loans, or a thousand other life decisions. 

So please, Professor Ramanathan explain to me one more time why math literacy should not be a major goal of education.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

After reading the comments on my post concerning tenure and evaluation, I realized that it was possible that what I was thinking about those topics was not reflected in what I was actually writing.  My first thought was to use the Charles Barkley defense.  When questioned about a controversial quote in his autobiography, the Hall of Fame basketball player said, “Obviously I was misquoted.”  But when my wife sided with the detractors, I decided to take a second look at what I had written.  My revisit convinced me that I needed to do some serious restating of my positions

What I did not mean

Unfortunately if someone chose to read my words rather than my mind, the following conclusions were highly probable:            

1. After three years teachers cannot improve at their craft
2. Therefore, there is little reason to work on improving one’s skills
3. Consequently, there is no value in having evaluations after year three

Try, try again—Topic 1

My semantic nightmare began as the result of an ill-fated attempt to differentiate between “evaluation” and “professional growth”.  I believe that for many people evaluation is a red-flag word.  These people view it as an administrative referendum on the success or failure of a teacher rather than an opportunity to improve a teacher’s skills.  With that perception in mind I tried to separate these two outcomes.  To achieve that split I contend that during the first three years of a career teachers should be subjected to an extensive and comprehensive evaluation.  During this process a decision should be made as to whether these individuals have the skills necessary to become an effective educator.  After that level of ability is quantified, the focus should then be placed on professional growth—continually working to become a better teacher.  I have often written that this method would be remarkably similar to evaluation—classroom observations by professional evaluators, videotaping, visiting other classes, frequent professional development opportunities. During my forty years as a high school math teacher I spent a great deal of time working with new teachers.  One of my main points of emphasis was that my approach was constantly evolving.  I would point out that every year whether it was my fifth, twenty-fifth or thirty-fifth, I would make notes to myself about changes I would incorporate the following year.  I strongly encouraged them to do the same.  Let me be clear—in order to be an effective teacher, one must be constantly evaluating and reevaluating their work.  New technologies, policies and educational theories must be studied and when appropriate incorporated into the classroom.

Topic 2

My second writing fiasco was my comment that teachers do not improve after three years.  This massive misstatement was the result of inadvertently grouping weak and strong teachers together.  The intended focus of this statement was on the removal of weak teachers.  I should have clearly stated that, if after three years of extensive evaluations, a person is found to lack the necessary talents to succeed as a teacher, the likelihood of the any significant improvement is remote.  This belief is based on observations of poor teachers, who for a variety of reasons were able to continue their careers despite obvious shortcomings.  Allowing these educators to remain year after year in the hope that they would suddenly become competent had a highly negative impact on the students they taught.  Consequently, I remain firmly convinced a more efficient and expedient method for removing these teachers must be implemented. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:18 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

At your next social gathering, bring up the currently hot topic of teacher tenure and you most assuredly will elicit many diverse opinions and emotions.  Some people are adamant that it creates and retains bad teachers.  Others are equally vociferous that without it good teachers are robbed of due process and are at risk of being fired on a principal’s whimsy.  One viewpoint will espouse that lifetime employment destroys motivation; the response will be that job security allows experimentation and innovation.

There is no question that many high-profile educators are firmly convinced that tenure is an absolute necessity.  In a recent post Tom Whitby, an invited participant at the MSNBC “Education Nation” forum, wrote about the critical need for tenure in all schools.  Mr. Whitby was particularly upset by the comments of a young educator who received a great deal of attention when  she stated that she did not feel a need for tenure because she was confident that her classroom performance would ensure her of continued employment.  Clearly, Mr. Whitby disagreed. 

“The sound of fingernails on the blackboard for that statement ripped into me. What she was asking for is what Tenure IS. It is a guarantee of due process. It guarantees that the only thing you can be fired for is that which you are responsible for in your teaching duties. What you CAN be fired for under the Tenure law is: Misconduct, Incompetence, Insubordination, Physical or Mental Disability, Neglect of Duty, or a Lack of Teaching Certificate. Additionally, it cannot be a blind accusation, it must be documented. It is also presented at a hearing with all parties under oath. This guarantees fairness in firing people. Why would any teacher say they don’t need that? If the world were as this young teacher assumes it is, having all teachers judged on the merits of their teaching, it would be a wonderful world. History shows us that it has not always been so.”

A difference of opinion 

While I strongly agree with Mr. Whitby that teachers must be protected against unjustified dismissals, I am not convinced that tenure is the best approach.  The ultimate goal of education must be to produce successful students.   Every day that a weak teacher is in the classroom has the potential of inflicting significant damage to student progress.   Any program that slows the termination process will have a potentially negative impact on academic success.  Thus, based on my own professional observations and after reading about the “rubber rooms” in New York City, I believe there are better methods than tenure to produce a high quality teaching staff.  What is needed is an efficient and effective plan to make good teachers more productive and reduce the number of weak ones.  Here is a four-step approach to building a teaching staff that will give superior results to one that depends primarily on tenure.

A comprehensive hiring process.     The act of selecting the correct candidates is one of the most important functions of a school.   The math of the situation is simple.  Hiring a higher percentage of excellent teachers dramatically lessens the need to find methods to remove poor ones. The job interview should include a sample teaching presentation by the applicant, multiple references, an on-site writing sample, and an extended question and answer period.  Great care should be taken throughout the reference process.  It should be the professional responsibility of all parties to be as honest and candid as possible when discussing the previous work of a candidate.  Far too many times when contacting references faulty or misleading information has lead to inappropriate hires.  The interviewing panel should include the department chair, assistant principal and a teacher from the subject area.  A follow up interview should have classroom observations by the candidate and time interacting with potential colleagues.  This approach will take a great deal of time.  But every minute spent finding the right individual can save hours of suffering with the wrong one.

Have rigorous evaluations during a teacher’s first three years.  The time to determine the potential of an educator is early in their career.  After three years it is highly unlikely that one will improve appreciatively.  But to be able to accurately determine a person’s potential requires a complex process.  Five or more observations by professional evaluators should occur each year.  Several of the sessions should be done by individuals who are certified in the subject area.  Videotapes of classes should be taken and reviewed by both the evaluators and teachers.   If at any point during this period a teacher is determined to be lacking the skills to be successful there should be a clearly established policy for termination.  Again, while such an evaluation system will be time consuming and expensive, dealing with the results of poor teaching will be far more costly and detrimental to students.

Create a continuing system of collaborative “teacher growth”.  After the initial evaluation period, the teaching staff should engage in an ongoing effort to improve each other’s skills.  This program would include a consistent interchange of ideas from colleagues who will observe each other’s classes, share ideas and suggestions, and when appropriate, carefully analyze student test results.  These groupings should include both teachers within a department and those from other subject areas.  It must be clearly understood that this is not an evaluation process but rather an opportunity to improve and refine teaching practices. 

Reduce the influence of the principal in the dismissal process.   I strongly agree with Mr. Whitby’s concern with a potentially capricious decision by a principal to fire a teacher.  (An example of this type of abuse of power will be presented in a follow up to this post)  I endorse two initiatives to eliminate the potential of such an occurrence. Requests for teacher terminations would be the responsibility of a committee rather than the exclusive domain of the principal.  In addition to the principal this committee could include the director of guidance, an assistant principal and the district coordinator of the particular curriculum.   In addition, greater care must be taken in the selection process of principals to ensure that individuals who would perform in an unprofessional manner would be excluded.  A process very similar to the one suggested for teachers should be adopted for administrative hiring.  Once again, the extra time and energy required for such a plan would be ultimately less costly than the damage caused by the wrong person being in this position. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Education has clearly become a white-hot topic.  Recently, NBC dedicated much of an entire week’s programming to the subject.  And one of the most popular items for discussion was the issue of tenure for teachers.  Heated words both pro and con were thrown back and forth. One of the participants, Tom Whitby, stated his adamant belief that if tenure were removed from our schools it would be potentially disastrous.  Although I disagree with many of the arguments he used to support tenure – a topic I will deal with at a later date – my more immediate sense of discomfort was with the overall tone of his piece.

A Chilling Moment

What I found troubling was Mr. Whitby’s displeasure with teachers who express their unhappiness with the current state of education.  He described one comment from the audience in the following manner:

“There was one striking comment however, from one young educator that sent chills down my spine, only to have them go up my spine by the applause that followed her statement. As an educator of 40 years, I was truly in awed (sic) and upset. Her statement was that she did not need Tenure. She only wanted to be evaluated on her teaching and she was confident she would have a Job the next year. She saw no need for Tenure (down the spine). TEACHERS then applauded (back up the spine).”

These remarks would indicate that no teacher should question the value of tenure nor should other educators demonstrate their support.  However, it was Mr. Whitby’s subsequent statements that I found most unsettling.

“The ugliness of this reform movement is in the name calling of teachers by teachers: Public school teachers against Charter school teachers; Young teachers against experienced teachers; Non-Tenured Teachers against Tenured teachers.”

Such statements are both misguided and unfair.  Teachers are not some monolithic group that agrees on every aspect of their profession and are somehow injured if they dare express any difference of opinion.  On the contrary, who better to discuss the proper approach to educational reform (including the role of tenure) than the people most directly impacted by such changes?  More importantly, the concept of teacher versus teacher is not nearly as destructive as Mr. Whitby believes.  The reality is that this confrontation, in a slightly altered form, plays out on a regular basis in schools all over the country.  Indeed, teachers have a highly vested interest in the professional abilities of their colleagues.  This concern is firmly grounded in the fact that, other than the students, no individuals in a school are as adversely affected by ineffectual teachers than the remainder of the staff.

An infection that spreads throughout a building

A poor teacher will disrupt not only their own classes, but all subsequent classes in courses that are taught sequentially.  The worst case scenario for students is to pass a course with poor understanding of the required material.  These students are then doomed to struggle with all successive classes in that sequence.  When this happens due to poor teaching, it is truly tragic. As these students move through the curriculum, they are destined to struggle just to keep up with the other students in the class. The progress of the class as a whole will suffer and competent teachers will face a difficult decision. Should they teach the topics again, resulting in a significant loss of valuable class time or allow some students to be deficient through no fault of their own?  Regardless of the choice, the progress of the class will suffer.

A poor teacher creates classroom management problems for everyone. One of the most common characteristics of an unproductive classroom is weak discipline. Unfortunately this problem can be contagious.  Adolescents do not automatically differentiate between one teacher’s standards and another.  It becomes a far more difficult task for teachers to enforce their own behavioral expectations when similar expectations are being ignored in other locations.  How many times has a teacher heard some form of “But Mr. X allows us to do that”?  Again, more critical class time is spent on problems that should not occur. 

A poor teacher results in students losing time in other classes.  Most administrators will tell you that suspensions are more frequently the result of misbehavior in a weak teacher’s room than in a strong one.  But a suspension results in students missing all classes not just the one where the infraction occurred.  In addition numerous conferences are often the product of such conduct which will also cause more time out of classes.

A poor teacher can affect other class activities. One year a young science teacher had a room adjacent to one of the weakest math teachers in the building.  He once told me that not a day went by without at least one administrator coming to that teacher’s classroom.  He added it was never surprising to find that teacher’s students in the hallways. Whether they were wandering because they had opted to skip the class or had been excused from the room without proper justification, they spent the majority of the time that they should have been learning math, disrupting other classes.

A poor teacher can wreak havoc with the grading system. Consistent grading throughout a building is critical.  Grades influence student class placements as well as the expectations of both the teachers and students.  Any disruption to this process is counterproductive.  The typical ineffectual teacher will assign erratic grades.  Sometimes in an attempt to gain cooperation undeserved high marks are given; conversely, poor grades are often the result of weak instruction or worse, punitive.  Regardless of the direction, other teachers will suffer. 

A needed dialogue

Teachers depend upon the good work of other teachers. They not only have the right but the responsibility to question educational policies, plans for reform and each other.  Teachers need to have a united front on one crucial issue—formulating way