What are the pros and cons of tracking? That's a question that I am frequently asked as I work with school leaders around the country. Instead of answering the question, I ask them a question in return. What do you mean by tracking? Instead of an immediate reply, I invariably get a confused look?

What is tracking?

There are several different forms of grouping, also known as tracking or leveling:

• "Within-class ability grouping" is typically found in elementary schools and not in high schools. One example might be multi-level reading groups.
• "Between-class grouping" - Students spend most of the day in “high,” “middle,” or “low” classes and use the same or similar curricula supported by the same set of standards. Schools often refer to these between-class groupings as "advanced" and "standard" courses.
• "Formal Tracks or Levels" - Students spend most of the day in ability tracks and use curricula substantially adjusted to their ability levels which are often supported by a differing set of standards and expectations.

Many schools and school systems have already or are actively eliminating the third form of grouping students, a system of "formal tracks or levels," because research has shown that this form of grouping actually harms poor, disadvantaged, under-resourced, and struggling learners.

The second method of grouping students--"between class grouping" has been shown to benefit high-achievers but does not have a negative impact on the performance of low-achievers.

My Take On Grouping

I favor an approach that provides two groupings--standard and advanced. Within those two general groupings, schools should provide tiered interventions, which provide additional learning time and support to ensure student mastery of course content. For example, students enrolled in an "advanced" AP course may need additional learning time in the form of after-school tutoring or additional review sessions (tier 2) in order to master course content. Likewise, students in standard English 9 may need additional after-school tutoring or review (tier 2), while some students may need a reading course (tier 3) in addition to their English class.

Students should be able to self-select into standard or advanced courses. In other words, enrollment in advanced or standard courses should be open to all students based on their identified strengths and weaknesses as well as their interests and motivation. For example, a student could be enrolled in and AP English class, but in a standard Algebra II course.

Courses that fall under the "advanced" label could include courses specifically labeled on a local level as "advanced." These advanced courses might include Advanced Algebra I, pre-IB, pre-AP, or Honors. The "gold standard" of advanced courses is the externally moderated courses such as ACT Quality Core, University of Cambridge International Examinations, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate.

Locally labeled advanced courses should never be offered in competition with externally moderated courses. For example, a high school should never offer an Honors Senior English in competition with AP or IB English.

Why not offer locally labeled honors courses in competition with externally moderated advanced courses?

First, most locally labeled advanced courses are not monitored. They are honors in name only. In some cases, these so-called honors courses are merely a way to segregate students because their parents don't want them in classrooms with "those kids." The teacher generally decides the curricula in these locally labeled advanced courses, and there is little or no consistency from classroom to classroom, from teacher to teacher, or from school to school. Unless there is a defined curriculum, accompanied by common formative and summative assessments, there is no way to ensure that honors courses are any more rigorous than standard courses.

Second, advanced courses are offered for advanced, college-bound students. Some parents may complain that externally moderated, AP or IB, courses are too difficult for their child. Allowing students to choose the less rigorous honors course instead of an AP or IB course deludes parents into believing that we are preparing their child for college when we know that all we are doing is placating them and their child. If a student is college-bound, why wouldn't that student be enrolled in the externally moderated course.

Third, generally speaking most AP and IB courses proceed at half the speed of a college course. What takes a year of high school to complete would be undertaken in one semester in college. True, some colleges award more than one 3-hour credit for some AP science courses. Likewise, universities frequently require additional lab time in science courses and they provide additional credit hours for successful completion of that science course and lab. Here is the essential question. If students cannot succeed in a half-speed course in high school, how will they handle a full-speed course only a few months later in college?

The Bottom Line

• Schools need to "push" students to take a rigorous course of study that prepares them to be college and career-ready.
• Labeling courses as advanced to placate parents is tantamount to malpractice.
• Offering honors courses as an alternative to AP or IB courses at the junior and senior level is a big lie. In no way are honors courses preparing students to do college-level work. The only way that I would agree to such a proposal is that these courses were externally moderated. They would have a standard course description and syllabus with accompanying district-wide common and formative assessments, which would make the whole idea very expensive.
• If we really have the best interests of our students in mind, we would ensure that they were adequately prepared to succeed in the most rigorous course that we could offer them.
• Finally, the Common Core State Standards and the accompanying assessments renders "formal tracks or levels," all but obsolete. The adoption of the Common Core State Standards means just that. We now have one common set of standards, which prepare all students to be college and career-ready, and which all students are expected to meet before leaving high school.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:07 AM | Permalink

Students want and need interaction with peers, which has been shown to improve learning. When students work in groups, what and how much they learn is directly related to the effectiveness of the interaction with their peers.

Some groups are naturally more productive than others. While some peer groups seem to interact naturally, others "struggle to maintain a balance of participation, leadership, under-standing, and encouragement."

The act of placing students in groups is not in itself an effective instructional strategy. The key is what happens in the groups.

Effective groups are characterized by:

• Questioning
• Explanations using evidence
• Elaboration
• Reflection
• Role Identification (Leader, Time Keeper, Scribe...)

The fact that a course is being conducted online does not alter the needs of the students. The principles of effective group instruction and support apply to both live and online instruction.

The Bottom Line

1. Skilled teachers take the time to instruct students not only in the cognitive skills necessary to learn the subject matter, but also in the social skills they need to work effectively and collaboratively in a team.
2. Students should only be held accountable for what we teach them, and that includes the skills needed to work effectively in groups.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:55 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

Master teacher, Sherry Singer, taught Advanced Placement Biology for approximately fourteen years and then switched to International Baccalaureate (IB) Biology for another fourteen years. Sherry taught for much of her career in what National Geographic Magazine called "the most diverse high school in America." When I need an expert teacher's opinion, Sherry is one of my "go to" people. 

I was looking for a veteran teacher's take on the recent cheating scandals. So, I asked Sherry, "You have probably read about the cheating scandals in DC, Atlanta and elsewhere.
Were you concerned about cheating on IB Exams?  Here is why I am asking. It seems to me that cheating is more of a problem on inexpensive, easy-to-score, multiple-choice tests than it is on a well-constructed assessment that require students to write and explain their answers.

In her own words, here is Sherry's take on cheating and quality assessment:

"You are correct.  I was never worried about cheating in my IB classes.  My classroom tests were always at least 50% essay or data analysis.  These types of assessments are almost impossible to cheat on. 

The IB has clearly thought out ways of discouraging cheating on their end-of-course exams.  Dave, our IB Coordinator, would always recruit IB teachers to be invigilators during the exams.  But we could never invigilate exams in our own subjects.  So I could not have helped students with answers even if I wanted to!  Back packs, cell phones, etc. were left outside the testing area.  No one was allowed to talk after entering the testing area.  One of my favorite IB exam stories was one of my students became sick during the exam and actually threw up in the testing area.  One of the invigilators took him to the restroom got him cleaned up and he came back to the exam, finished the exam and received a score of 6 out of a possible 7.  IB makes students tough! (He is a cardiologist today.)"

The Bottom Line

If students can copy and text answers to each other, and, if teachers can erase incorrect responses, we should admit that these inexpensive tests with poorly constructed questions tell us very little about what students know and what they are able to do. Why are we wasting so much money going through the motions? Why not spend the money on quality assessments that are much better indicators of learning? Instead, we end up spending valuable education dollars on test security and on investigating and firing cheaters at the same time we are laying off teachers and increasing class sizes.

We know how to construct high-quality assessments that, in Sherry's words "are almost impossible to cheat on." How can state and district officials look at themselves in the mirror and rationalize and justify firing teachers and principals and closing schools on the basis of the cheapest assessments money can buy? Bad karma?

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

"No one is arguing we shouldn't use technology in education anymore. The question is how."--Chris Lehmann, ISTE 2011

Education Week reports that data released by Project Tomorrow, the Software and Information Industry Association, and technology company CDW-G reveals a "perception gap" or "disconnect" between educators and students and between school-based staff and district staff.

Better But Not There Yet

"School districts are becoming more sophisticated in their approach to implementing online education but are still struggling to meet the increasing need and desire of students to learn online."

More Taking Online Courses

The proportion of high school students who had taken an online course as of last fall tripled from fall 2008, from 10 percent to 30 percent.

Online Courses Becoming Mainstream

Two in five students believe online classes are an essential component of education and administrators' concerns about funding online courses are fading. On the other hand, concerns about course quality are rising.

Teachers: No thanks to online learning

26 percent of teachers surveyed expressed interest in diving into online teaching if they hadn't already done so.

Who is the "cork in the bottle?"

"District-level administrators were found to be more supportive of online learning than on-campus principals were. The district-level superintendents or administrators are much more visionary thinking [about] what the long-term implications are. Principals are more narrowly focused on living right now, today, and dealing with today's issues."

Can't Keep Up

"Educators don't feel as if they are keeping up with technology, even if their actions would appear to show otherwise. "The more they do, the more they're aware of how much more they should be doing."

Up-to-date Classroom

What constitutes a "21st Century Classroom? "Any Internet connection, teacher computing device, and LCD projector are characteristics of a modern classroom."

Unsatisfied Students

64 percent of IT administrators rated their districts' technology as "cutting edge," only 45 percent of faculty members and 39 percent of students reported being satisfied with their classroom technology.

A Thought: The Common Core Assessments will involve extensive use of technology. They will all be computer and Internet-based. We have a lot of work to do before 2014-15.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:28 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

Background: The Washington Examiner reports that "Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale is planning to tell principals to ease teachers' workloads outside the classroom, following months of complaints from school employees who say they're overworked and overwhelmed."

I was attending a principals’ meeting held in a neighboring high school. When the meeting ended, I walked through the halls to the rear of the school where my car was parked. At the end of the hall sat a teacher. I exchanged greetings and asked her what she was doing. She explained that it was lunchtime and that she was assigned to sit there every day to prevent students from leaving the cafeteria area and walking through the halls and disturbing classes. I said jokingly, “You should come to our school. Our teachers don’t have hall duty. They used to, but we learned how to train fleas.” “Train fleas,” she asked?

Flea Trainers

I explained to her that if you put fleas in a jar (an old Zig Ziglar story) and put the lid on, and later removed the lid, the fleas wouldn’t jump out, because they were trained that, if they tried to jump out, they would bump their heads on the lid. She laughed. I went on to explain that for years our teachers were assigned to stand or sit in the hallways during lunch to prevent students from walking the halls, but one of the things that I am proudest of was how we dramatically cut extra duties for our teachers. I wanted our teachers to focus on teaching not hall duty.
With a confused look on her face, the teacher asked me how we kept the kids out of the halls. “Easy,” I said. As certified flea trainers, we replaced the teacher with a sign that read “No Students Beyond This Point.” We replaced the teachers with a sign, and guess what? After a “getting-used-to-it” period where we had to patrol the hallways, we received excellent cooperation from the students and there were no more students in hallways than when the teachers sat on guard duty.

Mixed Messages

Shortly after arriving at the school I decided that, if we wanted our teachers to focus on teaching, we had to show them that their time should be spent focusing on teaching. It was a mixed message to say, on one hand that teaching was the most important work in our school, and turn right around and assign teachers to numerous non-teaching duties. So, we removed teacher duties, including lunch, and what our district referred to as “extra-duty assignments,” which were actually part of the teachers’ contracts. I decided to unilaterally eliminate those assignments to give teachers more planning time.

The Bottom Line

Raising the achievement of each and every student is not easy and certainly not convenient. Even when we focus one hundred percent of our time on teaching and learning, we still have a long way to go. Leading schools today is not like it used to be. It's not about the ABCs (Administration By Convenience). It is convenient to assign teachers to extra duties, but we must recognize that doing so dissipates the energies of our teachers and detracts from our true mission--teaching and learning.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:48 AM | 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

"Lectures have been equally ineffective for centuries."--Carl Weiman

The Boston Globe headline read "Study: It's not the teacher, but method that matters." The headline is misleading. In fact, the study reveals that it is the teacher and how the teacher teaches that matters the most. While the study looked at college physics students, the findings apply to all levels of teaching and learning.

According to Science Magazine, the study conducted by Nobel Prize winning physicist, Carl Weiman, found that "students learned a lot more from teaching assistants using interactive tools than they did from a veteran professor giving a traditional lecture." The students who had to engage interactively using the TV remote-like devices scored about twice as high on a test compared to those who heard the normal lecture."

Active Engagement

According to the report the interactive method used had almost no lecturing. It involved "short, small-group discussions, in-class "clicker" quizzes, demonstrations and question-answer sessions. Frequent Checks for Understanding

"The teachers got real-time graphic feedback on what the students were learning and what they weren't getting."

Weiman said that "It's really what's going on in the students' minds rather than who is instructing them." In other words, lecturers focus on content and teaching, while those using interactive methods put the focus on student learning and process.

The Mindset of the Teacher

Those teachers who prefer lectures with no discussion believe that their job is to impart knowledge. To lecturers, the mind is a vessel to be filled. This is not to say that teachers should never lecture. Students often need background knowledge that may necessitate some use of lecture.

On the other hand, teachers who prefer methods that actively engage students believe that what the student learns takes precedence over what they are teaching. They believe that the mind is a lamp that needs to be lit.

Behavior Doesn't Lie

Students vote with their feet. In the study, student attendance and attention were higher in the interactive class.

Conclusion

According to Weiman, "This is clearly more effective learning. Everybody should be doing this. ... You're practicing bad teaching if you are not doing this."

Wieman said "the need for a more hands-on teaching approach isn't an indictment of a generation raised on video games. It has more to do with the way the brain learns, he said. This method has long worked well in individual tutoring; it's just now being applied on a grander scale, he said.

My Take

High-performing schools are student and learning-focused. Struggling and underachieving schools are adult and teaching-focused. It is not what we teach that is important. The focus needs to be on what our students are learning as a result of our teaching.

Engagement, the active interaction of students with teachers and other students in relation to the content of the lesson, is the key to learning. Engaged learners learn more and they retain what they learn longer.

The option of choosing between lecturing and engaging students was taken off the table when we decided to eliminate factory model, ability-driven schools that sorted students in favor of work and effort-driven schools in which each and every student is expected to achieve to high levels.

A challenge to school leaders

Using the above definition of engagement--students actively interacting...--take a walk through some classrooms. If students are not actively interacting, they are not engaged. Hint: If teachers are calling on students who are raising their hands only a small minority of students will be engaged. The others may appear to be paying attention, but upon closer inspection, they could be doing or thinking about anything. Note: these teachers, while not truly engaging students are far superior to those who ask a question and answer their own question before the students can even raise their hands.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:45 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

As measured by gains in student achievement, teachers, even experienced, mid-career classroom instructors, improved as a result of their participation in a formal evaluation process. An Education Week report cites two studies conducted in Cincinnati, which has an extended history using a formal evaluation system consisting of four formal observations. In Cincinnati, teachers are given a rating relating three standards: classroom practices, classroom management, and questioning and discussion techniques.

In addition to discovering that 1. Teacher participation in a formal evaluation process improved student achievement, the first study concluded the following:

2. Classroom Management Improves Math Performance

The study found that "while overall teaching practice was the best predictor of student achievement, classroom management was more highly correlated with better math performance."

3. Questioning Improves Reading

Teacher use of open-ended questions was more highly correlated with student performance than classroom management.

In a second study, also conducted in Cincinnati, student performance not only improved in the year that the mid-career teachers were being evaluated, but the improvement in student performance continued and even increased in the years following the evaluation.

It is important to note that in the Cincinnati evaluation system teachers are not evaluated annually and that the evaluation process does not use a value-added component. In addition, the Cincinnati teacher evaluation system connects to a career ladder for teachers, which may be a motivating factor.

Implications for School Leaders

- Teacher evaluation is not the most enjoyable part of a school leader's job. However, knowing that teacher evaluation improves student achievement makes the process more meaningful.

- If school leaders want to make a difference in student achievement, teacher evaluation is a no-cost way to do so.

- Teacher evaluation is most effective when the teachers are clear on what behaviors will be evaluated, and if both teachers and principals have had extensive, multi-year professional development. Cincinnati was chosen precisely because both factors were present. In addition, many states and districts are proposing similar evaluation models and Cincinnati's decade long experience should help inform future practice.

- Even more encouraging is the fact that student achievement continues to improve in the years following a meaningful evaluation process of even the most experienced teachers.

- It makes sense that questioning improves reading, but I wonder why classroom management makes a bigger difference in math classes. Perhaps the sequential nature of math demands continuous attention and student engagement--students miss out if they miss a step in the process.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:52 AM | Permalink

Teachers repeatedly complain to me that their students cannot do research at school because so many sites are blocked. In a recent interview, which is a must-read for all school staff and parents, Karen Cator of the U.S. Department of Education takes on what she calls "brute force technologies." According to Cator, many schools are over-complying with federal guidelines.

What you must know about content filtering

In the interview, "Cator parsed the rules of the Childrens Internet Protection Act, and provided guidance for teachers on how to proceed when it comes to interpreting the rules. To that end, here are six surprising rules that educators, administrators, parents and students might not know about website filtering in schools."

1.     Accessing YouTube is not violating CIPA rules.

2.     Websites don’t have to be blocked for teachers.

3.     Broad filters are not helpful.

4.     Schools will not lose E-rate funding by unblocking appropriate sites.

5.     Kids need to be taught how to be responsible digital citizens.

6.     Teachers should be trusted.

My Take

Content filtering is an important part of any school wide technology effort. I should know. In my former high school, every one of our 3,200 students had a laptop. We blocked inappropriate sites. On occasion, our staff blocked appropriate sites, but we had a simple remedy. If a teacher came across a site that she wanted unblocked, she simply emailed me the name of the site and the URL. I forwarded a request to our IT people and, within minutes the problem was solved. The key here is that the principal get involved and take some leadership. IT people are simply doing what they think is best. If they never hear from us, they have no idea that a problem exists. While it is true that some IT people practice the ABCs (Administration By Convenience), those individuals are rare. I have found most IT people to be particularly helpful, especially when the principal is willing to take the time to show interest and to get directly involved.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:53 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

"As a man thinketh in his heart so is he." James Allen

Here is the ultimate essential question posed in a New York Times article titled When Math Makes Sense (To Everyone): To what degree are our beliefs about children’s abilities determined by the results of our current education system?

The article was a follow-up to a previous piece on Jump Math's founder John Mighton, who expressed some interesting viewpoints on education and math instruction.

“Our belief in hierarchies is producing the hierarchies.” In other words, our belief that some people are naturally better than others in some areas produces an education system characterized by hierarchies designed to sort students. Formalized academic tracks would be the most extreme example of these formalized hierarchies. A math curriculum gamed to ensure that only "gifted" students could take Algebra in eighth grade, and thus, prevents many capable students from taking calculus in high school, would be a less obvious, but just as insidious, example.

Using Mighton as a case in point, the article postulates that we may not know what we are capable of achieving. "As a youth, he (Mighton) was fascinated by math, but he wasn’t a natural. He almost failed his first calculus course. But he trained himself to break down complicated tasks and practice them until things that initially confused him became second nature. He went on to do a Ph.D in mathematics."

"Research on experts – whether in chess, cello or computer programming – indicates that natural ability is less a predictor of success than effort and deliberate practice. A big part of what we call “giftedness” is “task commitment” – and that can be encouraged."

My Take

Our beliefs act as our auto-pilot that drives our behavior. What we believe about the capabilities of students to learn and teachers to teach directly impact the approaches we take. We can quickly discover what teachers and schools believe about students by examining four areas, which gives us insight into both a teacher's and a school's auto-pilot:

1. Grading - A teacher's philosophy of grading reflects the teacher's beliefs about human nature and how students are motivated. In fact, one of my favorite interview questions for prospective teachers was to ask about their philosophy of grading. Their response told us more about them as a person and as a future staff member than just about any other question we asked.

Teachers who believe that work and effort predict student success use grades as a means of providing both feedback and encouragement to their students. Grades are viewed as a byproduct of learning. Their students understand that their grades are a reflection of their work and effort and that they have the power to change them if they choose to work hard enough and to put in the time needed to master the concept. These teachers view student learning as feedback on their teaching and they use that feedback to guide their instruction, to focus review efforts, and to target remediation, because in their classroom, the only way a student can fail is if the student either quits of gives up. Failure is not an option. Their students typically say that their teacher will not allow them to fail. They never give up on any student. These teachers often used standards-based grading practices that emphasize mastery. They believe that learning time is relevant and the outcomes and mastery is an absolute.

Conversely, teachers who believe that grades are a reflection of student ability, use grades as rewards and punishment and as a weapon hoping that the fear of failure will motivate students to do better. Instead of using student learning as feedback on their teaching, they place the blame for poor performance on the students. Review and remediation are not a priority for ability-driven teachers. If a student is doing poorly in their class it is because they "didn't do their homework," or they "don't belong" in the class.

Schools tend to take on one of these two belief systems or mindsets. They either believe that all students, given time and effort, can achieve to high levels or they believe that students are either born with "it" or they are not, and no amount of work or effort will raise them to high levels of achievement.

The school that believes in work and effort seeks to reduce course failures and to increase the number of students taking higher-level courses through enhancing their skills. Schools who believe that ability predicts performance resist efforts to reduce course failure or to encourage more students to take higher-level courses because they fear that they will have to "water-down" the courses to help students succeed in those courses.

2. Interventions - Teachers who view ability as the best predictor of success see no need to provide interventions because failure is viewed as a natural consequence. They believe that it is their responsibility to sort students and to weed out the capable from the less capable.

Teachers who believe that work and effort predict academic success view interventions as a natural part of their teaching and helping to raise student achievement. These teachers simply refuse to give up on students.

Ability-driven schools often have no 3. Math, or 4. Reading interventions for struggling students. When offering interventions for struggling learners, ability-driven schools do so begrudgingly. Conversely, schools that believe that time, work, and effort are the best predictors of student achievement, have numerous interventions in both 3. Math, and 4. Reading for students and some even go as far as to require students to attend extra sessions.

Final Take

The beliefs, attitudes, and expectations of teachers combine to form a collective mindset or school culture, which drives the behavior of individual teachers and schools alike. Four specific areas provide insight into those beliefs and mindsets--grading, interventions, math, reading. How teachers and schools view and address these issues are strong indicators of the school's culture.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:39 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

In my last post, I asked Should Your Child Teach? My intent was to point out that, just at the time when we need quality teachers the most; teaching is being made a less attractive profession. This needs to change! A veteran teacher wrote me saying the following:

"Let me start with "amen". This is personal for me.  My daughter-in-law in Texas (who has a degree in English and a master's in Library Science) has decided to pursue a career in Special Education.  She is completing the necessary coursework and testing and now is faced with not getting a job due to budget cuts.  She is very discouraged, as would anyone else in her position. My son in California wanted to be a teacher/coach with his math degree and athletic background.  He is currently earning several times more than a teacher in the private sector.  It was way too easy of a decision for him."

While the search for teaching jobs may discourage some, it turns out that finding a teaching job may be much easier in some regions than in others. This assumes that budget shortfalls will come to an end and local funds will be available to hire new teachers.

Education Daily reports that a recent study from National Center for Education Statistics indicates that public and private elementary and secondary school enrollment increased by 10 percent between 1994 and 2007 and will continue to increase by 6 percent through 2019.

The best place to find a teaching job will be in the South and West. A 12 percent increase in high school graduates is expected in the South and a 9 percent increase is expected in the West. Decreases of 14 percent in the Northeast and 7 percent in the Midwest are expected.

Among the findings in Projections of Education Statistics to 2019:

• Seven states are expected to see enrollment increase by more than 15 percent: North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Utah.

• All of the New England states, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Michigan are expected to see enrollment decrease by more than 5 percent.

• The number of new teacher hires in public schools is projected to increase 40 percent by 2019.

Essential Questions for School Leaders

What does it mean for schools if student enrollments are increasing at the same time that fewer are enrolling in teacher preparation programs? My guess is that, just as the Common Core assessments are implemented, there will be a severe shortage of teachers. Who will suffer the most? As usual, rural schools and schools in less attractive, high-poverty areas will again find themselves at the end of the line when hiring new teachers.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:33 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

In a recent public appearance a prominent American made the following comments:

"We have piled on a lot of standardized tests on our kids. Now, there's nothing wrong with a standardized test being given occasionally just to give a baseline of where kids are at."

"Too often what we've been doing is using these tests to punish students or to, in some cases, punish schools."

"Let's find a test that everybody agrees makes sense; let's apply it in a less pressured-packed atmosphere; let's figure out whether we have to do it every year or whether we can do it maybe every several years; and let's make sure that that's not the only way we're judging whether a school is doing well."

"Because there are other criteria: What's the attendance rate? How are young people performing in terms of basic competency on projects?"

"I never want to see happen is schools that are just teaching to the test. Because then you're not learning about the world; you're not learning about different cultures, you're not learning about science, you're not learning about math. All you're learning about is how to fill out a little bubble on an exam and the little tricks that you need to do in order to take a test. And that's not going to make education interesting to you. And young people do well in stuff that they're interested in. They're not going to do as well if it's boring."

These are messages that more than a few teachers and principals want to hear--less testing, less pressure, less punishment of schools, more meaningful assessments, more focus on high-interest material.

If someone had told me that those were quotes made by President Obama In a town hall meeting hosted by Univision, I would have never believed it. Perhaps the fact that he has two school-aged daughters has helped reality sink in. We can only hope.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:24 AM | Permalink

Blogger's Note: Few would deny that written communications is an essential skill. It is also a skill that is rarely practiced. While literacy (reading, writing, thinking, speaking) skills are the "spine that holds everything together in all subject areas," in most classrooms, little reading and almost no writing is practiced on a regular basis.

The author of a New York Times op-ed piece is a veteran English teacher who teaches college freshmen to write essays and research papers, which he contends "invite font-size manipulation, plagiarism and clichés."

He believes that "We need to set our sights not lower, but shorter." Instead of insisting on long research papers, this English teacher takes a different, perhaps more relevant approach.

The author believes that "learning how to write concisely, to express one key detail succinctly and eloquently, is an incredibly useful skill, and more in tune with most students’ daily chatter, as well as the world’s conversation. The photo caption has never been more vital."

He is able to enhance the writing skills of his students, make learning more relevant, and differentiate his teaching by using a number of practical writing strategies that any secondary teacher can adopt.

• “Come up with two lines of copy to sell something you’re wearing now on eBay.”
• "Describe the essence of the chalkboard in one or two sentences."
• “Write coherent and original comments for five YouTube videos, quickly telling us why surprised kittens or unconventional wedding dances resonate with millions.”
• Write Amazon reviews for the works we read this semester.
• Write a cover letter or a networking e-mail.

The author emphasizes that "short isn’t necessarily a shortcut. When you have only a sentence or two, there’s nowhere to hide." "I’m not suggesting that colleges eliminate long writing projects from English courses, but maybe we should save them for the second semester."

"Rewarding concision first will encourage students to be economical and innovative with language."

Thoughts for learning leaders

• Reading gets students to college. Writing keeps them there.
• Writing improves reading skills.
• How can we improve our students' writing skills if they never write?
• Concise writing requires deep thinking.
• Synthesizing a complete thought into a few words requires students to engage in higher-order thinking.
• There are numerous examples of teachers using Twitter-like writing to enhance the writing skills of their students.

Strategy: Ask students to take an article or a passage from a book and condense it into PowerPoint bullets of no more than 8 words.

All of the above strategies would make excellent "bell-work" activities.

Writing Resources

Writing to Read: How Writing Can Improve Reading
(2010) www.carnegie.org/literacy

Writing Next (2007) http://www.all4ed.org/files/WritingNext.pdf

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:42 PM | Permalink

A few days ago I introduced my wife to the new iPad app The Daily. Yesterday, she wanted to show me how amazing The Daily was and how she was using it. She particularly liked the videos imbedded in the articles.

"What if you could make a textbook look like this? she said.

I told her to go to the Kahn Academy website and then check out this YouTube video featured on the PBS NewsHour.

A few minutes later, she came back, "This is amazing! This is a dissertation! How long have you known about this?"

I replied, "I tweeted about this a while back. Don't you follow me?"

"I don't know how to do Twitter," she replied.

"Do you know how to use YouTube, I asked? There are some great Twitter tutorials there."

She retorted, "I don't tweet!"

So, you are not interested into tapping into the collective intelligence of hundreds of other people? You think it is better to do it alone?

The Bottom Line

No more excuses - If you have an Internet connection, there is no excuse for not learning about something that you really want to learn about. Look it up!

Check out the Khan Academy. What began as the founder "making a few algebra videos for his cousins has grown to over 2,100 videos and 100 self-paced exercises and assessments covering everything from arithmetic to physics, finance, and history." It is a great resource for teachers and students.

Twitter is the best way to tap into the collective intelligence of many people with whom you share common interests.

Next: Revisiting Reverse Instruction

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:14 PM | 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

I received this message from a former colleague in an email this morning. "Did you see 60 minutes last night?  A school is paying teachers $125,000 per year and their student score are NOT going up!"

The title of the 60 minutes segment was "NYC charter school's $125,000 experiment: Does a non-unionized school that pays teachers a higher salary get better results?"

Background

Would teachers be willing to give up tenure and job security for a chance to earn a lot more money? "There's a school in New York City that's trying to prove just that. It's a bold new experiment in public education called "TEP," which stands for The Equity Project, a charter school that is publicly funded but privately run. It's offering its teachers $125,000 a year - more than double the national average." Zeke Vanderhoek is TEP's founder and principal.

"TEP aims to prove that attracting the best and brightest teachers and holding them accountable for results is the essential ingredient to a school's success. Could this school become a national model for the future of public education? That's the $125,000 question."

Demographics

TEP students are mostly African American and Hispanic, and almost all of them come from poor families. More than two-thirds of the students are reading below grade level when they get to TEP." There are currently 247 fifth and sixth graders and 15 teachers. That is a ratio of 16.5 students for every teacher.

Why pay teachers $125,000 a year?

"Because they're worth it, because teachers are the key, and if we can pay them this with the existing dollars, why aren't we doing it?" Vanderhoek replied.

"I don't think paying people more makes them a better teacher. You take a mediocre teacher, you double their salary, nothing's gonna change. So, if you wanna attract and retain talent, you have to pay for it. And that is ultimately how student achievement will be impacted," he added."

How are TEP teachers different?

According to the principal, "They're not. There are great teachers in almost every public school in the city. The difference is that they are often the exception, not the rule. So what we're trying to do is build a school where every teacher is a great teacher."

Student Engagement

Teachers must "produce some evidence that the students in their classrooms move from point A to point B," Vanderhoek explained. "In order for students to demonstrate that growth, they have to be into it. And so the teacher has to be able to engage students."

Closing the Achievement Gap

According to 60 Minutes, "the school's challenge is one that has bedeviled American educators for decades: how to get poor, minority, inner city kids to achieve at the same levels as kids from more affluent neighborhoods."

"The difference between a great teacher and a mediocre or poor teacher is several grade levels of achievement in a given year," Vanderhoek replied. "A school that focuses all of its energy and its resources on fantastic teaching can bridge the achievement gap."

Where does the money come from?

"There are no state-of-the-art facilities - classes take place in trailers. And the money that would go to pay for an assistant principal, reading specialist and other staff goes into teachers' salaries. But that means the teachers have to do those jobs as well."

Note: The report never indicated if the school requires students to apply, nor did the report indicate if the school served special education or ELL students.

Teacher Evaluation

Teachers are continuously evaluated by the principal and by each other.

Expectations of Teachers

According to one teacher, "The greatest benefit of working at TEP is that it's not okay to just be okay. And every lesson does need to be laser focused and super sharp so that you can get the best outcomes from it."

Students Say

"They actually care if we succeed and pass college."

"In my old school, I didn't really get that much attention and help with my class work, so I didn't do as well. Here, I'm getting As and Bs because the teachers stay on top of you and they actually help you when you need help," another said.

Teachers on Teaching

"You just have to believe in the kids. And I know that they can learn. And if there's a roadblock, if they're not getting it you know, look at me (teacher) first."

Tenure: If you have a pulse

Most charter schools like TEP are not unionized and don't offer teachers tenure.

"The idea that somebody could have a job for life no matter how they perform is not good for people in that job, much less for the students who have to suffer if that individual has gone downhill," Vanderhook said.

Asked if he thinks tenure should be abolished in general, Vanderhoek said, "Yes."

"If you have a pulse, you get tenure," former NYC Superintendent, Joel Klein said.

Can TEP be scaled up?

Klein says that traditional public schools can't follow the TEP model. Vanderhoek is able to make personnel decisions based on performance, but most schools can't because of tenure.

"It's virtually impossible to terminate an incompetent teacher. The process is so cumbersome that very few people will try. And so, as a result, we virtually get rid of no one for poor performance in the city," Klein said.

"In New York City more teachers have died while on the payroll than have been removed for cause. Over the past three years, out of 55,000 tenured teachers, only seven have been removed for poor performance."

Criteria for Evaluating Teachers

"Is the classroom managed in a way that supports instruction? Second, are the kids engaged? Are they on task? And third, is there evidence that students started at point A and grew to point B?" he explained.

Does More Mean Better?

Teachers indicated that it was not uncommon to put in 80 to 90 hours a week at TEP.

Disappointing Results

"When the fifth graders took the New York State math and reading exams, the results were disappointing. On average, other schools in the district scored better than TEP."

Note: There was no mention of the beginning and ending proficiency levels reached by the school.

It takes time!

"We don't have a magic wand. We're not gonna take kids who are scoring below grade level and bring them up in a year," Vanderhoek said.

"You're the head of the school, the principal. Why do you get to keep your job?" Vanderhoek was asked. "Ultimately to build an excellent organization is going to take time. And if that doesn't happen let's say four years from now, then I shouldn't keep my job," Vanderhoek said.

My Thoughts

- A school that has total control over hiring and firing and also controls which students attend and which students do not attend the school, in my mind, should show significant improvement. How can it not?

- Principal Vanderhoek is correct. It does take time to "build an excellent organization." The culture--attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and behaviors of the adults--must change and culture does not change in a year. TEP teachers were educated at the same colleges and universities as those teachers in other schools. So, why should they be any better or worse than any other teachers? The ultimate question is "Are the teachers better teachers for having taught in that school?" Are the students and teachers being set up for success? Does the culture of the school focus on student success or adult wants?

- There was a glaring omission from the schools criteria for teacher success--classroom management, student engagement, and improved test scores. Given the demographics of the school that consisted of large numbers of under-resourced students, the school staff should consider adding cross-content literacy instruction to their criteria for teacher success.

- The students are saying all the right things about their teachers. That combined with the fact that the teachers are working 80-90 hours a week and not getting results might indicate that they are not working on those things that raise student achievement and working longer will not produce better results. Activity does not equal success.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:27 PM | Permalink

I was in my local gym over the weekend when I glanced at an overhead monitor just as MSNBC was running a feature on the lingering effects of the shift to daylight savings time. The point being made was that the seemingly innocuous one-hour shift could send many into a "jet-laggy tailspin" for days afterwards.

There is an extensive body of research to support the idea that even mild sleep loss can adversely affect us both mentally and physically. The fact is that every Monday our students came into school jet-lagged, the effects of which were compounded by our 7:20 a.m. start time. Ask your students about their sleep patterns on weekends and they will probably indicate that they go to bed late and sleep late. In effect, our students were on west coast time every Monday and the impact probably carried on into Tuesday or Wednesday.

Student Achievement or Adult Convenience

You know a school or a school district is in trouble when the strategic plan follows the principles of the ABC School of Management--Administration By Convenience.  One of the best indicators of an adult-focused environment, one that is practicing the principles of ABC, is when research is blatantly ignored in favor of current practice. Last year I wrote, "At a time when the focus is on firing principals and teachers, here is an easy way to raise student performance by as much as 10%. School start times dramatically impacts academic achievement, behavior, motivation, and student engagement. I pointed to a student-developed video that continues to be true "conversation starter."

A Testimonial

A reader wrote me saying, "When my family moved out of the area, we went from a 7:20 high school start time to an 8:20 high school start time. My older kids had a VERY hard time with 7:20; my son, in particular, had a body clock that just wouldn't let him sleep before midnight. Now, my younger kids handle the 8:20 high school start time with no trouble at all. That hour has made all the difference in the world. If school bus routes are truly running these start-time decisions, then flipping elementary and high school times is perfect. Of course, those parents who use elementary school as a convenient day care would have trouble with the switch--but those problems should not be allowed to override brain science."

Research: Science says, "Let them sleep."

Today, so-called experts insist that schools use research-based strategies to teach students. Those same experts consciously turn their backs on research that would be inconvenient for them to implement.

The consensus in the field — informed by a large Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of American teens — is that adolescents need about nine hours and 15 minutes of sleep a night. Most get less. "Teens are caught in a tug of war between their biology and rules and schedules put in place by adults. Biology is losing."

In Nurtureshock: New Thinking About Children, author Po Bronson points out a number of key scientific facts relating to teens, sleep, and achievement:

• 60% of high schoolers report extreme daytime sleepiness.
• 25% of high school students report that their grades have dropped due to lack of sleep.
• Between 20% and 33% of high school students are "falling asleep in class at least once a week."
• "Children--from elementary school through high school--get an hour less sleep each night than they did thirty years ago.
• Loss on one hour of sleep has been proven to impact academic performance, emotional stability, obesity, and ADHD.
• "The performance gap caused by an hour's difference in sleep was bigger than the gap between a normal fourth-grader and a normal sixth-grader. Which is another way of saying that a slightly sleepy sixth-grader will perform like a mere fourth-grader. A loss of one hour of sleep is the equivalent to (the loss of) two years of cognitive maturation and development."
• Loss of sleep can "impair children's IQ as much as lead exposure."
• "Tired children can remember what they just learned."

Over the span of my career, I have heard many a colleague attribute bad student behavior to hormones. However, when it comes to actually applying science to address hormones, adult convenience again prevails. "A Day in the Life of a Sleepy Student," points out that "hormones play a role. Our brains produce the hormone melatonin as they prepare to sleep. Synthetic forms are sold over the counter as a sleep aid. (Mary) Carskadon found that melatonin levels in adolescents don’t rise until about 10:30 p.m. Sending your teen to bed at 10 is likely to lead to tossing and turning but not much sleep until the body agrees it is time. If a child who can’t sleep until 11 p.m. needs to rise at 6 a.m. to catch a bus, that provides just seven hours of sleep — two hours less than the average adolescent needs."

Minneapolis, which moved high school start times from 7:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. during the 1997-98 school year is a rich source of data on the difference schedules make in teen health and achievement. Scientists at the University of Minnesota did extensive research on the effects and found the following:

• Students report fewer signs of depression than peers with earlier start times. Attendance improved.
• Student transfers dropped
• Kyla Wahlstrom of the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota in an analysis of the schedule change. “Having a later start for the first hour of class appears to enable more students to not oversleep and to arrive at school on time.”
• Academic performance improved.
• Participation in sports and activities remained the same.
• Principals reported fewer discipline issues.
• A reduction in the number of students seeking help with relationship problems
• Parents reported that students were easier to live with.
• Students did not stay up later at night. 10:45 was the typical reported bed time.
• Most slept an additional hour each night.

According to Colleen Shaddox’s story titled “Delaying School Start Times Causes Alarm” , while some schools have acknowledged the science and moved back high school start times, the reason many more have not "lies in a mix of logistics and politics.

The Bottom Line

I spent my first 28 years in education with a 7:20 start time. For my last two years I moved to a school that had an 8:30 start time. I can personally attest to the fact that one hour made a huge difference in the mood of the students and staff. They were awake! If I had the choice, I would never go back to the earlier start time. The argument that I most often hear in support of the early start time is sports and activities. As the Minneapolis study found, student participation in sports and activities was not adversely affected by the later start time. In fact, in my last year, our boys' basketball team won the state championship.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:13 AM | Permalink

When two highly respected teacher-leaders with over seventy years of combined teaching experience tell me something, I listen.

In my latest post, which was a follow up to Working Harder or Working Better, I quoted The Teacher Leader who stated, "Teaching successfully is easier and more satisfying but no less time consuming." I went on to argue that teachers and principals in high-performing schools are still working hard but they are getting a lot more done, and, even more importantly, they are feeling a lot better about their work. So, even if they are worker harder than their counterparts in other schools, it doesn't feel as though they are.

After reading the post, the teacher-leaders wrote me saying, "We both agree that the last paragraph of your latest post is "the essential philosophy that made you such an outstanding principal.  It is all about giving teachers the tools to succeed.  Keep spreading the gospel of Riddile!"

Trust me! If these seasoned pros say this paragraph is important, then school leaders should listen!

"The better students do, the better they do. The better teachers do, the better they feel about teaching. It is our job as school leaders to create a teacher-friendly environment and remove barriers in order to set our teachers up for success, and it is the job of the teachers to do the same for our students."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:51 PM | Permalink

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

I recently posted a piece on Working Harder or Working Better, which responded to Bill Daggett's contention that teachers and principals in high-performing schools do not work any harder than teachers and principals in under-achieving schools. They simply work differently.

I asked The Teacher Leader, who taught math at our school, J.E.B. Stuart High School, for 40 years, if my memory was correct and here is what he said.

"I thought your blog was excellent and accurately captured what happened at Stuart High School during that time. The key message is that teaching successfully is easier and more satisfying but no less time consuming.  Finding strategies that work can be difficult, but they make the job so much more meaningful and the education so much better."

The Teacher Leader captures the essence of what I wanted to communicate. "Teaching successfully is easier and more satisfying but no less time consuming." In other words, we are still working hard but we are getting a lot more done, and, even more importantly, we are feeling a lot better about our work.

Here is another key point. When teachers are doing better that means that students are succeeding, or is it that when students are succeeding teachers are doing better and feeling better about what they do.

When students and teachers expect success, the positive, can-do feelings that emerge cannot help but enhance teacher-student relationships, which, in turn, improve student performance. In other words, success begets more success.

The better students do, the better they do. The better teachers do the better they feel about teaching. It is our job as school leaders to create a teacher-friendly environment and remove barriers in order to set our teachers up for success, and it is the job of the teachers to do the same for our students.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:10 PM | 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

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

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

New research may help school leaders with two important challenges that they face on a daily basis. First, in these tight budget times with fewer teachers, larger classes, and fewer resources, how do we improve student performance? How do we do more with less? What are some no-cost ways that we can improve our schools?

Second, given the complexity of course content, particularly in high schools, how do we enhance our skills as instructional leaders? How do we give meaningful feedback to teachers that will enhance their instruction even though we may have little or no background knowledge regarding the content of the course? For example, how do we give feedback to a world language teacher when we have never studied the language and cannot understand a single word they said in the lesson?

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. However, to find those gems, school leaders need to read between the lines.

Practicing Retrieval

When I read the abstract, my first thought was that this study would serve to support and defend the current obsession with standardized testing. The study concludes "practicing retrieval produces greater gains in meaningful learning than elaborative studying." 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."

Furthermore, the researchers concluded that testing might enhance learning far beyond the recall of simple facts. They report "retrieval practice is an effective tool to promote conceptual learning about science."

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."

Counterintuitive?

Students who used intense review, also known as "cramming" for a test, as well as other popular methods to aid recall such as "concept mapping" or "mind-mapping" believed that they would have better recall of the content. On the other hand, those who took a test after reading a passage believed that they would remember less. In reality, the reverse was true. Ironically, those who took the test and believed that they had learned less actually learned significantly more than their hard studying counterparts.

The real proof of learning

The only evidence of learning is remembering. Notice that I didn't say "memorizing." Remembering is the key. In this case it is the practice of remembering (retrieval) that improves learning. Think about it, if a student cannot remember the essential concepts of the lesson, did the student really learn it?

“I think that learning is all about retrieving, all about reconstructing our knowledge,” said the lead author, Jeffrey Karpicke, an assistant professor of psychology at Purdue University. “I think that we’re tapping into something fundamental about how the mind works when we talk about retrieval.” The Times reported that "several cognitive scientists and education experts said the results were striking.

The researchers divided the students into four groups. One group simply read the content. The second group read and studied the text in four five-minute bursts. The third group used a widely popular strategy known as "concept mapping." The fourth group read the passage, wrote a free-form essay, reread the passage and then took another practice test.

A week later the students were re-assessed and "the students in the testing group did much better than the "concept mappers." They even did better when they were evaluated, not with a short-answer test, but with a test requiring them to draw a concept map from memory."

The experts were surprised by the results of the study. They cannot explain why retrieval testing helps. "The Purdue study supports findings of a recent spate of research showing learning benefits from testing, including benefits when students get questions wrong. But by comparing testing with other methods, the study goes further."

This is a Big Deal

Cognitive psychologist, Dan Willingham indicates “It really bumps it up a level of importance by contrasting it with concept mapping, which many educators think of as sort of the gold standard. Although “it’s not totally obvious that this is shovel-ready — put it in the classroom and it’s good to go — for educators this ought to be a big deal.”

It Throws Down the Gauntlet

Howard Gardner, an education professor at Harvard who advocates constructivism — the idea that children should discover their own approach to learning, emphasizing reasoning over memorization — said in an e-mail to the Times that the results “throw down the gauntlet to those progressive educators, myself included.” Educators who embrace seemingly more active approaches, like concept mapping,” he continued, “are challenged to devise outcome measures that can demonstrate the superiority of such constructivist approaches.”

More Testing?

After reading between the lines, my initial reactions to this article turned out to be unfounded. This study does not promote or denounce standardized testing. Nor does the study promote memorization or rote learning. This study simply supports quality classroom instruction, but how?

Look 4s for School Leaders

Closure and Learning - The focus of instruction is not what teacher teaches but what the students learn. The close of every lesson should focus on what the learner has learned not what the teacher has taught. The question is how does the teacher know that the students have learned and mastered the lesson unless there is some type of formative assessment--quiz, test, or activity.

Remembering - The only evidence of learning is remembering. When observing a lesson ask yourself how does the teacher know that students will remember what they just learned?

Checks for Understanding - Teachers should pause frequently during a lesson to check for understanding. How frequently? As a rule of thumb, teachers should check students understanding approximately every fifteen minutes, which approximates the attention span of the average adolescent. According to the Science study, one of the most effective checks for understanding is the quiz used as a formative assessment. Teachers can pause and ask students to write a summary or take a brief quiz on what they just learned. Immediately re-teaching a concept to a classmate may also be used to test practice retrieval.

Timing is critical. When it comes to recall, tomorrow is too late. Teachers need to check for student understanding before students leave the classroom each day.

Feedback - "Feedback is the breakfast of champions." Unless students practice recall (retrieval) and get immediate feedback they will not remember.

Defined Instructional Practices - Some students absolutely need a highly structured classroom room environment characterized by identifiable instructional practices, smaller units of instruction, more frequent assessments, coupled with frequent and immediate feedback. However, students who can function equally as well in low or highly structured classrooms are not penalized in any way by the use of structure. In other words, when in doubt, use a more structured approach.

Formative Assessments - How often should students be assessed? How frequently students are assessed or asked to practice retrieval depends on their familiarity with the content and the student's level of mastery. When students are introduced to new content or when they are struggling with a particular concept, they should be assessed more frequently. For example, the skills of proficient and advanced readers need only be assessed annually, while students reading at the basic level or below basic need to be assessed regularly. Frequent assessments mean more feedback. A quiz or summary essay at the close of a lesson will do more for student recall than extensive homework assignments.

Mapping - Instructional strategies like "concept mapping" are effective, but they work better if they are used as part of "practice retrieval." The act of creating a "concept map" in and of itself does not improve learning unless the student makes use of the map as a part of the "practice retrieval" process. Teachers should show students how to use the concept maps to review for a test and not assume that the students know how to do so.

What this study really says to school leaders

This study emphasizes the critical importance that school wide defined instructional practices, which include frequent checks for understanding, play in the learning process. When the teacher asks students to reflect on the lesson by practicing retrieval and the students receive immediate feedback, learning improves by as much as 50%.

Next: Checks for Understanding

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:50 AM | Permalink

Several years ago the College Board announced a dramatic departure from past procedures and began requiring Advanced Placement (AP) teachers to submit a syllabus for approval. I viewed this as an attempt by the College Board to protect both it good name and brand. Up to that point, a course could be called AP, but the content of the course was strictly up to the discretion of the teacher. In theory, the AP course was designed to prepare students to take an AP exam. However, some schools were gaming the system by "offering more AP courses," but, in reality, many of the students enrolled in those courses never sat for the exams. Of those who did take the exams, the national rate of students scoring a passing grade of 3, 4, or 5 plummeted to approximately sixteen percent.

I remarked at the time the AP was trying to look more like the International Baccalaureate (IB), and I predicted that the trend would continue to intensify in the near future. According to the New York Times, that is precisely what is happening and I view this as a positive trend that will dramatically change the quality of the AP courses and take much of the guesswork out of the process for both teachers and students. However, these changes will stress out veteran AP teachers, who have become accustomed to doing their own thing. This means problems for school leaders.

Some of the changes, which take effect in 2012 and 2013 include:

• Reductions in the amount of material that teachers need to teach and that students need to know for the tests
• Providing a curriculum framework for what courses should look like
• A move away from memorization to a focus on bigger concepts and more analytic thinking
• A move away from multiple-choice responses to an emphasis on thinking and written expression
• More hands-on activities and experiments intended to help students think more
• An emphasis on going into greater depth on fewer topics, allowing students to "experience problem-solving, controversies and the subtleties of scholarly investigation.”

Instead of drawing my own conclusions about these changes in philosophy, I practiced what I frequently preach. I asked an expert teacher. In this case, I happen to know a master biology teacher who has a unique perspective. Sherry Singer actually taught AP Biology for approximately fourteen years and then switched to IB Biology for another fourteen years. In here own words, here is Sherry's take on the changes.

"Having taught both AP (Advanced Placement) and IB (International Baccalaureate), it is very clear to me what is happening.  The AP is moving more and more to the IB model.  This is a very good trend in my view. 
When I used to teach AP (and it sounds as if it hasn't changed very much if at all), I was frustrated by the amount of information that was to be taught in one year.  It necessitated students coming in before or after school, during lunch or on Saturdays just to meet the basic requirements of the course.  I could really empathize with the teacher who said that she hoped that she could retire her "swift marches through the organ of the day".  They only required 12 labs but we needed several days each to do them well and even at that, we never really had time to discuss the results or what could have been done to improve the lab.  The tests were largely multiple choice and the essay questions were so broad that it was difficult to determine exactly what the AP was looking for in an answer.
The first and most important difference with IB was that I could have two years.  (Something that the AP still apparently does not permit.)  What a joy to be able to have the time to perform labs well and actually discuss the results.  The IB requires laboratory work but the instructor can choose which labs will be performed and they must be at least partially developed by the student.  In other words, the student actually does research rather than performing a canned lab that was developed by a university professor.  Obviously, the benefits to the students working in this kind of laboratory situation where problem solving was critical transformed lab days for me and my students.  From the article, it sounds like the AP is going in this direction by having students develop their own hypotheses and figure out how to test them - very IB!
The other change that was mentioned was that they are going to give teachers a detailed syllabus stating what topics need to be taught and which can be left out.  If they do as good a job as the IB, this should be a great help to AP teachers.  I found the IB syllabus to be a huge help when designing my course.  (In fact I used to copy the IB syllabus and give it to the students to help them study for the exam.) If a topic, term or concept was not in the syllabus it was NEVER on the IB exam.  It allows teachers to have more time to develop concepts in depth.  I remember the first few years that I taught IB, luxuriating in the extra time to do labs well and have meaningful, in-depth discussions with students without feeling the clock ticking behind me. 
Finally, the IB tests were only 40 multiple-choice questions.  The other questions were data-based or essay.  The data-based questions often dealt with data that the students had never encountered before. This was done by design and was intended to help the graders determine which students could take their knowledge of biology and make sense out of totally new data - something that scientists have to do every day.  The third type of question was essay.  But the essays were always divided into sub-headings, which helped the students organize their answers and ensured that they delivered the information that the test designers were looking for." 

What school leaders should consider

• The changes in AP Biology and other science courses courses will require appropriately equipped labs, which, in tight budget times, may be difficult to implement.
• "Another concern is how well teachers — across the full range of A.P. subjects — will adjust to an approach that will require them to give up some control and let the students dictate more about where the class discussions go." Like IB, these changes in AP will require a considerable amount of professional development. As Sherry Singer once told me, "We are going to have to totally change the way we teach science."
• Both AP and the new Common Core assessments will require more writing by our students, which is known weakness in most high schools. We cannot wait until students take their first AP course to begin emphasizing writing skills. Ditto for critical thinking skills.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:59 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

Winnie Hu of the New York Times, recently wrote about the increasing use of the iPad in American schools and, in a short time, there have been a number of follow-up articles, some supportive and some negative.

Hu's article mentions a pilot program at Roslyn High School on Long Island, which distributed 47 iPads on Dec. 20 to the students and teachers in two humanities classes. The school district hopes to provide iPads eventually to all 1,100 of its students.

I recently had the opportunity to visit a small, rural, high-poverty school system and observed pre-school and kindergartners using iPads. I have recent experience with both iPads and one-to-one computing. Even though I was the principal in a large urban high school in which each of our students had their own laptop and I have my own iPad, I had some questions about iPads and how they could be integrated into classroom instruction to actually enhance student performance. In other words, were the iPads toys or personal computing devices?

Any doubts that I held were quickly dismissed by the effortless manner in which these four and five-year-olds and their teachers have integrated used the iPads into the learning experience. For these beginning readers, the iPads were a normal part of their learning experience. In fact, if I hadn't known, I would have thought the iPads had been around for years, instead of months.

The students used the iPads both individually and in pairs. As is their custom, the teachers had students working in groups of 6-8 students. While one groups was using the iPads, another was working with an instructional aide and another was working with the teacher. The iPad group required little or no direction from the teacher or her aide. They simply launched the app as instructed and proceeded to work.

I was particularly impressed by one specific app that cost a mere 99 cents because, several years ago, our school had purchased a software package that addressed the very same literacy skills. The difference is that that software cost tens of thousands of dollars more.

Additional thoughts on iPads and technology intergration:

- iPads are durable enough for use by even the youngest users.

- The software/apps are low-cost and are getting better all the time. So, the teachers can afford to experiment to find the apps that are best for their students. Furthermore, if they have a student with a specific need, they can find an app for that.

- Those favoring a "back to basics," pencil and paper approach to classroom instruction would be impressed by the fact that the students were actively engaged and on-task. The iPads were not being used as toys, but to support personalized student learning.

- iPads have long batter life, ease of mobility, and a screen large enough to allow for active social interaction. Battery life was a big issue for us in our one-to-one project.

Novelty, Nicety, or Necessity?

Think about it! How extensive would your personal use of technology be if you had to share a computer with two or three other people in your office? My guess is that you would be years behind where you are right now. I know that I would. The fact is that, when it comes to adults, we know that they need their own computing device.

I have believed for a long time that, until each student has his or her own computing device, we have not fully implemented technology and we cannot claim to be serious about integrating technology into instruction. Going from a high school with an excellent computer to student ratio that took years to achieve, my move to a school in which every student had a laptop confirmed for me that my dreams of a paperless classroom and 24/7 learning could be realized.

As long as computer labs are the best that we can do, technology will be a novelty or a nicety. Only when every student has a personal computing device will technology become a necessity. Until then technology integration is only a dream.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:37 PM | Permalink

What impact will the recent changes proposed in the definition of a "highly qualified" teacher, which would allow those in alternative teacher preparation programs to be labeled as "highly qualified," have on the ability of schools, particularly high-poverty, under-resourced schools, to significantly improve student performance? How do school leaders feel about Congress making it easier to become a teacher? Will this change improve the supply of teachers and make it easier for principals in some smaller, more rural areas to recruit and hire teachers?

A friend of mine once told me that I was wrong about school improvement. "All we need to do is hire great teachers and our problems are solved," he said. Since he had never worked in a school, I had to remind him of what happened in the real world. First, great teachers aren't born. Teachers become great through the combination of ability and years of preparation and a lot of hard work. Second, teaching is a profession. As is the case in any profession, teachers are expected to grow and improve throughout their careers. Third, many new teachers have had only a few weeks of actual classroom experience. They need a lot of support early in their careers. Finally, the principal plays an important role in both the short-term and long-term growth of a new teacher and whether that teacher will remain in the profession.

The best teach the neediest

Some object to the use of poor and minority schools as the training grounds for interns, because "alternate route trainees are disproportionately concentrated in low-income, high minority schools," which turn into "exclusive training grounds" for alternative route trainees, who "learn on poor peoples' children--and then move on."

Schools need more experienced, better trained, and more skilled teachers. This is particularly true in under-resourced, high-poverty schools that typically end up with the least experienced teachers and ultimately have the highest teacher and principal turnover.

Instead of saying that "anyone can teach," we need to treat teaching as a true profession. We need to shift the culture away from downgrading teaching, blaming teachers, and encouraging the firing of teachers.

Just as the Peace Corp was a part of an overall effort to improve the economies of third-world countries, programs like Teach for America (TFA) are a part of a solution to help struggling, high-poverty schools. They are short-term fixes to long-term problems. Lowering the requirements for teachers only serves to preserve the status quo.

In the long-run we need real systemic changes including:

• Elevating the status of the teaching profession
• Improving the quality of the applicant pool by encouraging top students to enter education
• Enhancing the quality of teacher preparation programs
• Improving professional development
• Improving teacher compensation
• Improving working conditions

Thanks, but no thanks!

From a principal's perspective, increasing the pool of prospective teachers solved a short-term problem. I could fill hard-to-fill vacancies. However, in the long-run that convenience turned into a curse. I learned the hard way that, even if the alternative route teachers stayed long enough, it took a lot more work to get those people up to speed. In the meantime, their students had much lower success rates.

Schools will never exceed the quality of the teachers. Lowering the requirements to teach might improve the quantity of teachers but the quality will suffer and so too will student performance.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:05 AM | 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

Be careful what you ask for! Just about anyone could see this one coming. Cut school budgets and layoff teachers. Demand that teachers close the achievement gap. Tie evaluations to test scores. Threaten to fire teachers. Complain about teacher pay. Call schools failing. Then wonder why people don't want to be teachers.

School leaders and teachers face a new "perfect storm." The pressure to improve continues to rise and the resources continue to diminish.

According to a new report, "the number of Californians seeking to become teachers has plummeted by 45 percent over a seven year period – even as student enrollments are projected to rise by 230,000 over the next decade and as many as 100,000 teachers are expected to retire." Furthermore, "Teaching is clearly becoming a less and less desirable profession for Californians." While student populations continue to grow, the critics are going to get exactly what they asked for--more students and no new teachers.

I have said it all along. Our problem is not how to fire teachers, but rather how to recruit, train, and develop great teachers. This is confirmed by a report from the Center for Future of Teaching and Learning which warns about the brewing crisis:

"The disinvestment in building a top quality teacher workforce is at odds with rising demands for students' academic success. The fiscal crisis has so severely damaged the pipeline for recruiting and training new teachers that teaching quality may be put at risk for many years to come."

"Because of budget cuts, teachers are expected to do more with less, typically teaching in larger classes, with fewer counseling and other staff to help out with hard-to-teach children."

One expert put it bluntly, "Teachers are coping with lower compensation, fewer resources and increasing expectations of student achievement. "It is a reasonable expectation that a college sophomore or junior might think 'I might not even get a job, so perhaps I should look for another career."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:16 PM | Permalink

Arne Duncan was right when he said to me, "we need to create a culture in which our best teachers and principals want to work with our neediest students."  The problem is that what we are doing is resulting in the exact opposite.

Not only are the best teachers and principals not working in our neediest schools, but the threats of penalties, sanctions and firings are driving them away in droves. Today, working in a high-needs school is more likely to be a career-killing experience.

However, the real damage that high-stakes accountability is having on public education may not be in what happens to those already in education, but in the fact that many will now never enter teaching.

Take special note of what 20-year veteran, Victoria Robinson, wrote in the Chicago Tribune.

"As an undergraduate, many of my non-teaching peers devalued my decision to pursue a teaching degree."

"Along with signing my first contract, I took a vow of poverty."

"The most hurtful public message was that I was to blame for just about every academic, social, economic and political problem in America. American students' test scores are inferior to students in other countries — blame the teachers. American kids are disrespectful — blame the teachers. The American work ethic is slacking — blame the teachers. And if my student doesn't earn all A's, it must be the teacher's fault. I am just a teacher."

"I am just a teacher in a society where nearly 30 percent of the children eat their only hot meal of the day at school. I am just a teacher in a country where out of more than 49 million public school students, 4.5 million have special needs; more than 1 million are abused, of which half are victims of neglect; and tens of thousands of families experience homelessness each night."

The Bottom Line

One leading expert once told me, "All we need to do to improve schools is hire great teachers." While it has never been easy to attract the best and brightest to the teaching profession, the current climate of "reform" is making that virtually impossible.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:18 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

Guest blogger: Bob Farrace, NASSP Senior Director for Communications and Development

Typically, educational technology documents don’t make much of a splash outside of the educational technology community. The final National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) released earlier this month is the exception. Unlike so many educational technology documents that romanticize new tools for narrow tasks, the NETP is so much more about education than technology. The plan proposes a new model of learning enabled by technology but driven by the student’s individual educational needs. Language of personalization and engagement and student empowerment are a familiar echo of the Breaking Ranks framework that NASSP has promoted for the past 15 years. So this might be just the opportunity school leaders need to shatter the ed-tech echo chamber and join—perhaps even lead—the conversation about technology as a transformative force that enables and accelerates the attainment of educational goals to which we have aspired for years.

The plan comes at an opportune time. At last count, 43 states are poised to adopt Common Core standards, complete with technology-enabled assessments—a key element of the NETP. Prior to taking the assessments, though, students will benefit from a likely new explosion of open educational resources, or OERs, whose development will be focused by the Common Core. The new model of learning requires access to these new multiple resources—not just content, but teachers, mentors, and learning communities.

Certain new realities might push us this direction, ready or not. A recent National Coalition for Teaching and America’s Future report details one reality that boils down to this: Boomers are leaving the teaching profession more quickly than we can replace them, and half of those new teachers leave the profession within five years. If we plan to hang on to the industrial-era model of replacing an outgoing body with a new (and cheaper) body, we might as well ring the crisis alarm now. We’re not going to recruit our way out of this one. Otherwise, we can take the opportunity to remodel the teaching profession along the lines, for instance, of the NETP “connected teaching” model, in which teachers act less as content delivery agents and more as superconnected conductors of the various content sources and learning networks that contribute to the student’s education.

The NETP is a rich document with big aspirations for transforming the learning enterprise. Its success will require the coordinated efforts of everyone with a stake in schools. And we have a 2015 deadline to pull it all together. So there’s a new urgency for principals to do their part and take a crucial first step: Create the conditions for connectivity in schools. First, this presumes all kids can access connectible devices—one small part of the infrastructure overhaul NETP calls for. Schools with 1-to-1 laptops or other mobile learning devices (MLDs) are the exception, so the norm remains students who occasionally visit the computer lab or wait their turn to use the classroom computer. Such access is not nearly enough to fulfill the NETP aspirations, yet principals can reallocate their small discretionary budgets only so far. Thankfully, there are a number of favorable precedents—the state of Maine, in fact, even figured out how to institute a 1-to-1 policy statewide. So we’ll be keeping an eye out for the policies and funding sources that will replicate that success throughout the nation.

In the meantime, principals can prepare for the advent of MLDs by beginning the crucial conversation about connectivity. NETP will see no progress while we continue to debate if schools should give students (and teachers) access to social networks and other Web 2.0 tools. They should. They must. Now. Some schools have figured out how to make it happen without the CIPA police tapping at their doors. And while some potential dangers are real, frameworks are emerging for principals to lead stakeholder conversations that set expectations for responsible use of social media and accountability for misuse. (Here’s one, to get you started. And NASSP will continue to identify and share them.) Those conversations are overdue. And the only real investment is the decision by an enlightened leader to make the conversation a priority.

What are the other ways principals can prepare now for the NETP to get traction in schools?

Posted by Bob Farrace at 01:19 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Doesn't Matter?

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

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

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

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

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

Context Matters

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

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

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

Subjects Matter

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

A recent Washington Post article caught my eye and elicited a strong reaction from The Teacher Leader. When I saw the title "Taking Fs off the grade book," I knew that what followed would be trouble. I know because I have been there.

Through years of practice, I learned that a school's grading policy is one of the most difficult issues to address. Why? Grading is more about core beliefs than about following a procedure. A teacher's philosophy of grading reflects the teacher's beliefs about human nature and how students are motivated. In fact, one of our favorite interview questions for prospective teachers was to ask about their philosophy of grading. Their response told us more about them than just about any other question we asked.

In addition, everyone has attended school and has received grades. So, everyone has an opinion about grading. When you seek to change the grading policy, you will only here from the parents who received good grades when they were in school.

You will also hear complaints from your best students. They have learned the system and they follow the rules. They will not appreciate others being "rewarded" for not following the rules.

In other words, changes in grading practices will most likely be resisted by your most involved parents, your best teachers, and your highest performing students.

Grading is a cultural issue and cannot be properly addressed by simply changing policies. Grading policies are a cultural indicator. Culture changes require collaboration and the involvement of all stakeholders.

Changing grading policies won't change mindsets. Teachers who believe that students are motivated by fear of failure will grade accordingly as will teachers who believe that students are intrinsically motivated to learn. Teachers who believe that students either "have what it takes" or they don't, will continue to sort students for success. Instead of giving Fs, they will give Ds--a rich man's F. Conversely, teachers who believe that work and effort create ability will seek to raise every student to high levels of achievement.

In our school, we talked about grades for years, but when our teachers were allowed to take complete ownership of student success, grades ceased to be a major issue. I vividly remember a student being asked by a visitor to our school, "What is different about this school?" The student responded, "In this school, the teachers won't let you fail. They never give up on you. They make sure that you learn. They want you to do well."

Memos don't change culture

If what you want in your school is a culture of success in which every student expects and is expected to succeed and to achieve at high levels, then declaring "no more Fs" is not the solution.

Changes in school culture take years and many, many conversations. Memos won't change culture.

Start with data. Present the data on student grades to your school improvement team and begin the conversation. Make teachers a part of the solution. Memos aren't solutions. Teachers don't take pleasure in failing students. If they knew the answer, they would already be using it.

When leading change efforts, start small and work with the willing. Otherwise, you will be spending most of your time on damage control.

Treat your school as a laboratory. Encourage the school improvement team to find a group in your school that would be willing to try out a new method of grading. Let them work out the kinks and let them present their findings to the faculty.

The Bottom Line

Trust your teachers and partner with them to build a supportive school culture. Remember, this is "our school," not "my school."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

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

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)

While some may question "how much math we really need," the numbers don't lie. According to a Wall Street Journal article, the "starting pay of certain liberal arts majors generally clocks in well below that of graduates in engineering fields."

"Graduates with engineering degrees earned average starting pay of $56,000 in their first full-time jobs out of college, topping other majors. Communications and English majors only earned $34,000 in their first jobs."

Conversation Starter

We may be debating the wrong issue. Instead of asking if our students need math skills, we should be asking what math skills do our students really need?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:12 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)

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 ways to ensure student success.  Being appalled that teachers do not always reflect a united front on how to reach that goal is foolish and wrongheaded.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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 second 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.

The job of a district-level instructional coordinator is extremely challenging.  It is a role that must weave together the requirements, goals and needs of remarkably disparate groups.  The rules and regulations of the state and district school boards must be implemented and the goals of the system’s leadership team must be accomplished while assisting two dozen different high schools establish programs that serve very different student bodies.  Moreover, all of these tasks must be performed from a position that possesses little actual authority.  But Tom Nuttal, District Coordinator of Math Instruction, overcame all of these obstacles to become a significant contributor to the success of math education throughout the system. 

What attributes made him the most effective district supervisor?

Tom believed that all of his responsibilities were equally important.  The previously defined job description becomes infinitely easier if the component of meeting the needs of each individual school is ignored.  Creating programs that only satisfy state and local educational leadership is relatively simple when compared with creating plans that work in a wide-ranging set of circumstances.  Tom understood and appreciated the reality that every school is unique. He believed that a “one size fits all” approach where every math program is the same could make for wonderfully simplified, impressive power point presentations, but lack the necessary complexity and flexibility to address the educational challenges inherent in a diverse school system.  The less affluent schools were at particular risk in such situations.  Tom strongly encouraged the creation and implementation of a variety of methods to improve student success.  He did far more than simply talk about such innovation.  He helped put into practice a unique approach to Algebra 1 at my school which was predicated on the fact that we had the largest ELL population in the system.  When our program began to demonstrate significant progress he looked for ways to utilize some of its fundamental principles to help other schools.  This attitude was in stark contrast to many others in similar positions who preferred simplistic answers for complex issues.  Tom did not feel that student success should be borne entirely by the teachers, but that sometimes the district’s program may need to be altered to enable those teachers to be effective.

Tom took a pro-active approach to educational change.  Anticipating state standardized end-of-course exams years before their implementation, he created a district Algebra 1 exam to be administered to every student at the conclusion of the course.  This testing helped teachers and administrators prepare for the eventual creation of barrier state exams.  It also served as an excellent measure of student achievement throughout each building and the system.  As is so often the case, the reception for this “extra burden” at the end of the year was less than enthusiastic but Tom was adamant and as a result many students and teachers benefitted years later.  He also realized that technology was going to become a large part of the educational scene.  While others waited for funding to purchase computers, he found creative methods to utilize existing monies to ensure that math teachers were at the forefront in terms of hardware and training.  When it was obvious that graphing calculators were going to revolutionize math education, Tom acquired funding to train large numbers of teachers in the effective use of these devices.

Tom was not averse to challenging the educational leaders in the district.  When the concept of “block” scheduling was being favorably discussed by the system’s policymakers, Tom recognized that such a program could be detrimental for many math students.  He spent countless hours mobilizing discussions that would reveal some of the negative aspects of this type of schedule.  Likewise, when the district was discussing a new set of grading and reporting regulations that would result in diminishing teachers’ control of their classroom grading policies he used many of his department chair meetings to explain the potential repercussions.  His results were mixed.  Block scheduling became a reality but the grassroots resistance to the new grading system resulted in a rollback of these potentially misguided policies.  Win or lose, his first loyalty was always to the success of the students and the integrity of the curriculum.

Tom was a pragmatist. Whether he agreed or disagreed with a district initiative he worked hard to make the implementation as smooth as possible.  My favorite Tom Nuttal story revolved around the block scheduling debate.  He fought the good fight but when it became obvious the new plan was inevitable he swallowed his bruised pride and announced that every district workshop in the future would be ninety minutes in length—replicating a typical “block” thus giving teachers a preview of what their educational future would look like.

Tom treated teachers as professionals.  Every year he would apply for and receive federal grants that would enable him to take large numbers of district math teachers to national math meetings.  These exposures gave educators throughout the system an enlightened view of math education from a national perspective.  In addition such trips to large conventions gave teachers an opportunity to network with each other much as professionals in other occupations do on a regular basis.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:16 PM | Permalink

Ask any educational reformer for a list of the most critical problems in our schools today and the topic of student attendance will inevitably be found near the top.  The logic is simple—if you are not there, you are not going to learn.  But based on a recent Education Week article by Hedy Chang the solutions to this long-term problem may be far more complicated than many would expect.  Ms. Chang presents five significant myths about student attendance that should give everyone in education pause.   Here are the misconceptions that she believes are inhibiting some real solutions to the problem.

Students don’t start missing a lot of school until middle or high school.

National research has determined that 10% of all kindergarten and first-graders miss at least a month of school each year.  In some places, such as New York City, the number of students is twice as high.  Obviously the vast majority of these absences are excused—children at this age are unlikely to be staying home without some parental supervision.  According to Ms. Chang the ramifications are potentially immense:  “…the bad attendance habits that lead to skipping school can become entrenched in the early years.”

Absences in the early grades don’t really affect academics.

Not surprisingly studies show that chronically absent kindergarten students do not perform as well in the first grade as those who were consistently present.  It is not unusual to have these deficiencies continue throughout elementary school.  Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments was found in Chicago where the attendance of ninth-graders proved to be a better predictor of drop outs than eighth-grade test scores.

Most schools already know how many students are chronically absent.

Ms. Chang laments that most school data concerning absences only revolve around the total school attendance patterns and “unexcused” absences.  Consequently many individuals who are missing large portions of class time remain under the educational radar.  As she points out “an elementary school of 400 students can have 95 percent of its students showing up every day and yet still have 60 children missing 18 days—or 10 percent of the school year.”

There’s not much that schools can do to improve attendance; it’s up to the parents.

While certainly the traditional path of parental involvement and truant officers needs to be taken, there are often unique concerns that an individual school can incorporate into their programs.  Ms. Chang relates that many causes of chronic absenteeism can be mitigated.  She speaks of Muslim students missing classes during Ramadan for fear of sitting in the cafeteria during these days of fasting.  Other schools had problems resulting from parents who were shift workers and were not awake when their children should have been leaving for school.  Another group that missed too many days was those in homeless shelters.  In each of these cases the affected schools found solutions. One brought in a Muslim counselor and a separate room for these students during the lunch period.  For parents who slept during the day, a school opened the building early to allow parents to drop off their children after work and before going to bed.  

The Federal government has no role in reducing chronic absenteeism.

Test scores may be important but one of the major reasons for poor test scores is bad attendance.  Ms. Chang believes that the federal government should be requiring statistics on chronic absenteeism as well as truancy and test scores.  School improvement can be measured by improved attendance.

The Bottom Line

Successful teaching cannot begin until students are regularly attending class.  Every day that is missed is a lost opportunity regardless of whether the absence is excused or not.  Consequently strategies need to be created to maximize student presence. At my former school the administrative team recognized the importance of this problem and employed a number of techniques to reduce “excused” absences.  When many Muslim students were leaving early on Fridays for prayer, the principal met with officials from the mosque and arranged for a parent volunteer to come to the building during lunch to hold the sessions in the school.  For students who were chronically absent, an automated callout system was used to make 6:00 a.m. wake-up calls to these specific homes.  But as Ms. Chang has written, too many times such innovations are being implemented too late in the process.  These kinds of interventions need to occur at the very beginning of a student’s education.

For every elementary school the overriding need is to acknowledge that all absences -excused or unexcused - are detrimental. They have both short- and long-term negative consequences.  A culture establishing excellent attendance must be created in the earliest grades.  To that end, careful and consistent attention must be given to the analysis of the attendance record of each individual student not just school-wide data.  Every reason given for missing school should be examined and methods devised to prevent them from becoming chronic. If such an approach is started in the primary years, the continuation of such policies at the high school level will become far more effective.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:05 PM | Permalink

Thirty-one year old, Bobby Cramer, won his big league debut by pitching the Oakland Athletics over the Kansas City Royals 3-1. The ESPN SportsCenter hosts jumped all over this story because Cramer is a former math teacher. They showed math equations of two of his pitches using distance and time to calculate the speed of the pitch, which was an effective real-world math application.

Sadly, the anchors managed to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory. They simply could not leave well enough alone. Even though well-intentioned, they managed to completely undo the good they were doing for math teachers around the country.

In between their calculations the SportsCenter anchors made comments like “I was in remedial math” implying that theses simple equations were above their ability. One implied that it was a good thing that he had good writing skills, because high-level math like that would have kept him from graduating from college.

Several years ago, I was appearing on a PBS program with then Assistant Secretary of Education, Henry L. Johnson. The program was focused on how to encourage more students to take more math and science courses. At the wrap-up, the moderator asked me if I could make one recommendation to parents what would it be? I looked at the camera and said, “Never tell your child that you were good or bad at math and science! Anyone can be good at math and science if they are willing to work hard enough. Parents ruin their child’s math and science self-esteem by too often telling them that they were bad at math.”

According to Carol Dweck’s must read book for school leaders and parents, Mindset, what I had learned from years of practice, as a school leader, was spot on. Telling students that they are good or bad at a particular subject or skill is the wrong message because it ruins motivation. The message that our students need to hear is that work and effort create ability. “Your success or failure is the result of work, effort and deliberate practice.”

The message that the SportsCenter folks should have conveyed was that ‘Bobby Cramer’s years of hard work and practice paid off. He made it to the show, and in his first start, he beat the Kansas City Royals 3-1.’

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:35 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, Robert J. Samuelson documented the failure of educational reform for the past four decades.  He presents a compelling collection of data that clearly demonstrates that much of the innovation done in this country has been totally ineffectual.  Some of this information included:

The highly reliable National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) testing scores shows an educational system that is flat-lining.  In 1971, the first year of this testing, the average reading scores (range 0-500) for seventeen-year-olds was 285.  Thirty-seven years later that number was 286.  In the same two years math scores moved from 304 to 306.   A few quick calculator keystrokes reveal that in nearly four decades reading and math scores for our students have improved by a grand total of 0.3% and 0.6% respectively. 

Mr. Samuelson then reveals some surprising statistics.  During that same time period the percentage of teachers has increased by almost 800% when compared to the additional number of students (61% more teachers; 8% more students).  Not surprisingly student-teacher ratios have plummeted.  In 1955 this comparison stood at 27 to 1; in 2007 each teacher on average had fifteen students.  Even the image of the underpaid teacher is a tough sell—in 2008 the average teacher earned $53,230.  While this wage hardly translates into great wealth it is equally far removed from poverty.  Finally, the number of students in preschool has seen a nearly five-fold increase from 11% to 53%. 

Mr. Samuelson closes his argument by stating that the ultimate reason for the lack of improvement is a dearth of student motivation.  Too many adolescents do little work in high school and a significant number need remedial work in both reading and math when entering either a community college or a four-year institution.  And as illustrated by his data, teacher pay, student-teacher ratios, and mandatory standardized tests have scant impact on this shortcoming.  But the writer saves his harshest criticism for those in charge of reform:

“Against these realities, school ‘reform’ rhetoric is blissfully evasive. It is often an exercise in extravagant expectations. Even if George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind program had been phenomenally successful (it wasn't), many thousands of children would have been left behind. Now (Secretary of Education Arne) Duncan routinely urges ‘a great teacher’ in every classroom. That would be about 3.7 million "great" teachers -- a feat akin to having every college football team composed of all-Americans. With this sort of intellectual rigor, what school ‘reform’ promises is more disillusion.”

Changes that make a difference

Mel Riddile and I have written at length about our concerns with the current structure of public education in the United States and potential adjustments that could improve the system.  As Mr. Samuelson has aptly demonstrated throwing meaningless platitudes and feel-good non-solutions has not made any discernable difference.  Significant improvement demands equally significant change.  If there is to be any major advancement, here are four places to start:

Lengthen the school year.  Learning must become a year-long activity.  How many other important, sequential endeavors take a break of thirteen weeks after thirty-nine weeks of work?  Will paying teachers for 240 days instead of 190 cost more money?  Absolutely, but the educational gains both in student performance and the retention and development of the staff will be more than worth it.  How many extra dollars are spent every year due to failure?

Expand the school week.  Use Saturdays for remediation and extra contact time.  Lengthen the school day to eight or more hours.  Remove distractions—athletic programs should become community activities.  Get educational institutions out of the sports business.  The academic standards currently in place to participate could be maintained but far too much educational time is given to these events.  I loved being a long-time football and tennis coach but if we are really serious about improving our students’ academic achievement we must narrow our focus.

Remove poor teachers.  The newest fad for removing weak educators is to fire the entire staff of a school.  While this may give the appearance of progress, it merely serves to rob districts of their competent teachers as well as their worst.  And most of all it does not make anyone better.    Schools with great teachers succeed.  But acquiring the best teachers is only part of the solution.  Other than the recent mass firings, when was the last time you knew a teacher who was terminated for ineptitude?  And how long did it take the system to remove that individual from the classroom?  In my forty years of teaching I saw two teachers removed for ineffectiveness.  And in each case it took more than five years of diligent work to make these changes occur.  What is needed is an evaluation system that improves good teachers and dismisses poor ones in an expedient manner. Great teachers make great schools; bad teachers give unmotivated students credibility. 

Increase the role of teachers as leaders.  Creating school policy should include a significant input from the entire staff.  While the roles of department chairs should be strengthened, all staff members should be given an opportunity to have an integral involvement in all components of the school.  Collaborative evaluations including other teachers should become common place.  A building’s philosophy should bubble up from every part of the culture not trickle down exclusively from the administrative wing.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:00 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

This somewhat shocking question was asked in a recent story in The Christian Science Monitor.  Their article tells of a growing number of school districts located in cities including Detroit, Denver, Minneapolis and Boston where schools are being created without principals.  In this new format teachers are making the decisions on everything from curriculum coverage to cafeteria schedules.  While each city has a different program it appears they are being formed in response to a common problem—teachers believe that they are being held more and more accountable for student achievement while having little or no control over how their schools address the issues that impact classroom success.  According to the article teacher response to this scrutiny is basically, “Fine. Hold us accountable. But let us do it our way."  The writer, Stacy Teicher Khadaroo continues:

“While each teacher-led school is unique, the shared decision-making is what defines them. The teachers' participation tends to create a culture quite different from that in a traditional principal-led school: Teachers can't hide behind the classroom door or complain about policies, because they have to come up with solutions.”

While I applaud any approach in which teacher input is both solicited and implemented I am concerned about the wisdom of removing administrative teams designed to make decisions that are neither appropriate nor productive for teachers to make.  Time is a scarce commodity for teachers.  And using it to address such issues as school-wide student discipline, truancy, transportation, lunches, building cleanliness or budgets appears antithetical to the stated goals of these innovative, teacher-led institutions.  What I continue to fervently support, however, are schools where the teaching staff is deeply involved in the decisions that most affect them and their students.

Control or Cooperation

Mel Riddile has written on numerous occasions that for a school to succeed, principals need to be willing to trade some of their control for the cooperation of their staff. Based on my experiences as a department chair for twenty-six years and as a teacher for forty, I agree wholeheartedly.  I worked for a decade in a situation where it was clear that the opinions of teachers were considered and utilized; the department chairs had wide-ranging influence on the curriculum, hiring and the master schedule; and major policy issues were discussed at every level before implementation.  I have also worked in an environment where critical decisions were made behind closed doors and announced without discussion.  Department chairs were specifically told that their major responsibility was simply to carry out the policies of the administrative team.  I feel that the assertion by Ms. Khadaroo—if you want a school where the teachers are willing to be held accountable they must be an integral component in the overall process—is accurate. 

A Successful School with a Principal

Rather than getting rid of the principal, why not attempt to blend both worlds with certain specific arrangements which would ensure teachers accepting accountability and a hierarchy of leadership that would make the school function appropriately?  Here would be my picks for five areas of teacher influence:

Create a strong mid-management presence.  Give department chairs significant authority in the areas of hiring, scheduling, assigning rooms and generating academic policies.  The input of this group should be solicited and utilized on a regular basis.

Choose department chairs in a professional manner.  Schools should have clear and consistent criteria for selecting individuals to be department chairs.  In too many cases these selections are made based purely on seniority, favoritism or, worst case scenario, by whoever is willing to volunteer.  If the job is to be taken seriously, the appointment process must be equally serious.

Create teacher leaders throughout the building.  On every hall in any school there are teachers who have great ideas which could significantly improve academic success.  These views could have a profound effect both in the classrooms and throughout the curriculum.  Administrative leaders should encourage department chairs to solicit input from their members on all academic topics and should also approach teachers directly to request their thoughts and place them in leadership positions on influential committees.

Put classroom teachers into the evaluation process.  During my forty years of teaching math I was never evaluated by an administrator who had taught the subject.  Input from a fellow math teacher would have been welcomed and would have provided a unique viewpoint as would the thoughts of someone from a different department.  Evaluations need to be a collaborative process that includes individuals from the classroom.  Placing teachers into this process would provide an opportunity to make a significant impact on the improvement of both the teachers being observed and the ones making the observations.

Give teachers a voice in administrator evaluations.  In this new “flat-school” approach to education, teachers should have both informal and formal input in the assessment of the administrative staff.  Assistant principals should meet on a regular basis with teachers to have open and honest conversations about the positive and negative impact of their work.  In such a forum comments like “I like the way you handle student discipline for classroom misbehavior but your punishments for being late to classes appear to be inconsistent”, “If you would drop into our classes on an informal but somewhat regular basis I think it would send an excellent message to the students” or “I feel like you are not supportive enough of the teachers when working with your students” could result in constructive outcomes and interesting conversations.  On a more formal basis, teacher participation should be solicited and incorporated into the performance evaluation of all members of the administrative team.  Both of these avenues for frank and sincere dialogue between these two parts of the academic team could provide a significant improvement in morale and a greater sense of teamwork. 

Save the principals!

Principals and administrators should, in an ideal world, facilitate the job of the teachers.  If educating all children at the highest academic levels is our goal, then teachers need all of the help they can get.  They do not need more work or an enhanced job description.  If administrators are allowed to do their job of creating a positive learning environment then teachers can spend more of their time educating, inspiring, and enlightening their students

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:48 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Misconception Number 1

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

Misconception Number 2

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

Misconception Number 3

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

Improving education is complicated.

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:23 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post I decried the decision by the Los Angeles United School District to publicly release a list ranking 6,000 elementary school teachers based on their students’ standardized test scores.  My main argument against this practice was the havoc it would cause in terms of teacher cooperation, staff morale and administrative anxiety.   My assumption at the time I posted this blog was that at least the standardized tests that the teacher evaluations were based on were valid – maybe not perfect, but valid.  However, recent disclosures about the validity of the New York Regents exams has caused me to question the suitability of using end-of-course test scores in any effort to evaluate teachers. 

The Gold Standard No More

During the implementation of the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) exams, teachers were instructed to use the Regents exams of New York as a model for what the state was trying to accomplish with their standardized tests.  Sample Regents or Regents-like exam questions were disseminated to assist teachers in preparing their students for the SOLs.  Virginia clearly wanted to develop a set of exams to demonstrate mastery of a subject in a manner similar to the New York exams. 

Flash forward to 2010.  A recent article in the Albany Times Union reveals that passing the Regents exams has little relevance to a student’s educational accomplishments.  As reported by Times Union education reporter Scott Waldman:

“A quarter of New York’s college students in two- and four-year schools need extra academic help, according to the Education Department. And though nearly three-quarters of students have passed the core Regents exams for the last three school years, just a third of them scored over 85, the bar set by SUNY schools.”

To complete the downgrading of a once proud educational innovation, Waldman adds that the Regents are now “so hard to fail they have become meaningless.” 

The teachers preparing students to take test understand that the rigor has been so reduced that it is now virtually irrelevant.  In order to graduate a student must score at least 65 on five Regents exams.  According to a social studies teacher in Queens a student can miss 15 of 50 multiple choice questions on one of the exams and still earn a raw score of 90. 

Tip of the Iceberg

How many of the tests being used by states to monitor student progress are being created poorly and graded ineffectually?  I have already shown through a statistical analysis that due to the construction of the test (multiple-choice with no penalty for guessing) and a low passing score (50%), an individual can pass the Virginia Algebra 1 SOL exam by answering slightly less than 40% of the questions correctly. These standards should not equate passing with demonstrating mastery of a subject.  Moreover, making the Regents, SOLs and any other barrier exams so easy that they become extremely difficult to fail should cast serious doubt about their reliability as a component of teacher evaluations.  If the Obama Administration, the LAUSD and others want to tie teacher performance to student test scores there needs to be a significant commitment to creating tests that accurately determine a student’s actual comprehension of the curriculum and a teacher’s ability to implement a program that delivers that knowledge.  That commitment will include the funding to write and grade tests that are not exclusively multiple-choice and the courage to establish standards that will reveal more accurately the success or failure of a school system.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:24 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The Los Angeles Times with the cooperation of the leadership of the Los Angeles United School District (LAUSD) is publishing standardized test results listing more than 6,000 elementary school teachers in terms of their classroom effectiveness. The ranking of these educators by a “value added” analysis of their students’ scores on standardized exams is enthusiastically applauded by Education Secretary Arne Duncan who says, "In education, we've been scared to talk about success."  Duncan’s stance was that the public disclosure of the results would allow school systems to identify teachers who are doing things right.  "We can't do enough to recognize them, reward them, but — most importantly — to learn from them," he said.   Secretary Duncan is not alone in praising this effort.   Bonnie Reiss, California’s Secretary of Education has announced that the state will encourage districts to follow the lead of LAUSD.  

Standardized Tests Scores and Teachers

I, myself, have written on a number of occasions of my conditional support for the use of standardized tests scores in evaluating teacher and school performance.  My critical qualifier though has always been that the people doing the interpreting must have a clear understanding of what the information actually means.  There needs to be a high level of sophistication when reviewing a complicated set of data.  When that level of competence is attained then teachers should be held responsible for their students’ test scores. To that end, I applaud the introduction of “value added” data which measure scores in a longitudinal manner rather than in simple raw numbers.  This is a significant first step in creating meaningful measuring tools.   

But how can we expect the general public without any context to accurately assess the meaning of the numbers being released?  It is unlikely that a primer explaining in detail exactly what is being conveyed will accompany the listing. What is far more likely is that the community will look for the number next to a name and rate the teacher exclusively on the position of that number in the ranking. There is truth in the old adage that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Bad, Worse and Worst Outcomes

Competition does not necessarily make everything better.  That approach may work in some vocations but not in the world of education.   To the contrary the competitive nature of publically ranking teachers will impair schools causing decreased professional collaboration, lowered morale and administrative nightmares.

The most successful educational staffs are the ones who share their best techniques and strategies with each other.   When teachers are pitted against one another as will be the case when their “scores” are posted in public, cooperation within a building will take a significant hit.   When was the last time the pitching coach for the Red Sox sent an email to a Yankee hurler with a helpful suggestion?  Unfortunately, it is also highly unlikely that the teacher ranked 43rd is going to be giving tips to the one sitting at 54th.   

Staff morale will also be negatively impacted. Duncan’s claim that the primary outcome of this exercise will be to “celebrate our best teachers” is laughable. If that were the goal, to celebrate teachers, then the correct approach would be to list only the top 10% of the teachers instead of all of them. Does the secretary think the readers are not going to move quickly to their child’s teacher’s rank?  Rest assured morale will plummet as individuals keep one eye on the “standings” and one on their classrooms. As parents and students demand placement in what are now perceived as the best teachers’ classrooms, an emotional price will be paid.

And how are administrative staffs going to handle the repercussions from the release of this value added analysis?  How does one tell someone that their child must stay in the classroom of the 14th rated teacher when their neighbor’s child is across the hall in number 8?  Can class sizes remain in balance under this predictable onslaught?  And will some of these rankings become self-fulfilling prophecies if certain teachers have classes primarily populated with the children of the most activist parents while others are overloaded with the families least involved in the process? When a principal has a teacher who is ranked 5421st on his staff, what should be his response to the inevitable parent concerns?

Bottom Line

Publishing these numbers in this manner is not only mean-spirited it is destined to be tragically ineffective if the goal is to improve the teaching profession. What is needed is a better evaluation process which has the ability to help struggling teachers and terminate unproductive ones.    Instead of simply printing lists, continue to refine the “value added” measure of student test results as a part of the larger process of analyzing the totality of a teacher’s performance.  Then create a procedure that will quickly identify and remove weak members.  The end point of this more effective, albeit more difficult, approach would be a staff populated by uniformly capable educators.  Only then should we feel free to talk about and celebrate success.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:57 PM | Permalink