Early Childhood, Baltimore, and "Changes at the Margin"

Go ahead, yell at me.  I promised to write more and actually managed to write even less.  I am clearly still working out the kinks of establishing a blogging schedule -- and failing miserably!  So I won't promise, again, to write more regularly.  But I will say with a smile, "I'm baaaa-aaack!!" 

Saw this article in the NY Times today.  It is actually from Tuesday. 

Here is the executive summary:

• The achievement gap, a well-documented enigma, exists.  It's proven itself largely un-fixable despite countless efforts.
• A new study says that believe it or not, it's worse than we thought, and part of where we need to fix will be unpopular for a lot of reasons:  the correlation is more than just poverty, but rather what happens at home in the early childhood years. 
• Baltimore has done a great job seeming to close the gap, and in fact had the dropout rate of black students lower than that of white students.
• The Baltimore schools head attributes this NOT to "changes at the margin," but rather to staying on top of the kids, where they are and what decisions they are making, IN REAL TIME. 

This is interesting.  (And not just because it's a story from the NY Times that doesn't blame teachers for all that is wrong in education today, and doesn't point to anyone else who does so!)  In fact, in two separate places, the article seems to point to the kinds of things I've often lumped together as "common sense," but which of course go far beyond that moniker.

First -- we can do everything in our power to change what happens at school, and before and after school, and we can adjust for single-parent and no-parent homes, but until and unless we can change what happens because of what is considered normal in raising the youngest children, we likely can't make as much of a difference as we'd like.  A person who doesn't know (how or even whether) to talk to an infant, or read to a toddler, or teach proper grammar to a child who is learning to speak, is likely not going to raise that child to survive our schools, to be literate or even functional.  I suppose you can say that one can teach what one doesn't know.  We all know that our actions speak louder than our words, and we raise our children (at least to some extent) how we were raised, following what was modeled for us.  When what has been modeled is universally agreed to be not just non-ideal, but actually a failure of society, we need to have the discussions about how to change what has been generationally embedded. 

Second -- the highly-touted "solutions" of closing failing schools, lengthening the school day/year, increasing the prevalence of charter schools, and increasing teacher quality, are actually not much of anything.  They are, according to the study, not really shown to make a difference; and according to the Baltimore schools chief Andres A. Alonso, they are the "changes at the margin" -- the things that don't make as much of a difference as they make a headline and a stink.

Here's the article.  If the link is expired, leave a comment and I can update to a pdf version.

A Reporter's Thoughts on Necessary Qualities for A School Board Member

If you haven't been able to tell by now, I regularly read the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's education blog, Get Schooled.  It's a pretty decent way to see some "hot topics," and the discussion can occasionally be enlightening.  Maureen Downey is the blogmaster/author/what-have-you, and she does a pretty good job of posting regularly, even occasionally participating in the discussion.

In Sunday's print edition of the AJC there was a special pull-out section on metro-Atlanta school boards.  If you've seen any of the news around here in recent years, some prominent counties in metro Atlanta have become notorious for their school boards' dysfunction; one district even lost its accreditation.  Following this section, Ms. Downey posted a blog entry about what she thinks ought to be minimum requirements for school board members anywhere.  It was a thoughtful post; generally she writes an intro based on her experiences with the topic at hand and then shares a related news story, but in this instance she opened with the news and took an opportunity to write her opinion.

Here  is a link to the blog itself, and reprinted here (in italics, to distinguish her writing from mine) is her list of requirements.  I am pleased to say that I agree with most of them.  I've got to step away from the computer for now, but I intend to come back later to comment in more detail on some of these requirements.

In evaluating school board candidates, here are some considerations that I think are important for voters:

— What’s been their historic involvement with the schools? Can they name the schools in their districts and the principals? As surprising as it may seem, some candidates can’t list the schools in the areas they want to represent.

This should be agiven.  In a big enough district, I don't think a candidate needs to know every principal's name, but if you don't even know the schools in your district, you can't possibly hope to represent them.

— Have they attended school board meetings on a regular basis? Potential board members don’t have to show up at every meeting, but they have to attend enough to understand what the board does.

This is a great point.  When I "ran" for the school board position this summer, I had not attended meetings regularly (to be fair, I hadn't attended at all).  I was pretty naive, really, in this respect, and will surely attend meetings regularly when we "land" someplace where we intend to live.  That being said, it is entirely possible to be very involved and yet unable to attend meetings regularly.  I agree with the last sentence 100%: you might not need to attend every meeting, but you sure ought to know what goes on and how.

— What are their plans to improve student achievement? At some forums, candidates never address student achievement except to complain that it’s not high enough. But they offer no ideas about how to raise it.

One of my biggest pet peeves. Can we start, please, with a definition of achievement?  Then, let's talk about what we mean by improving it?  THEN let's see if the candidate has a plan.  Anyone can stand up and pontificate on how we need to improve student achievement (sheesh, it seems everyone already does!); no one ever seems to define it -- nevermind to lay out a plan other than "train our teachers."  Let's not get me started here ...

— Be wary of candidates running because of a private gripe with the district over how their child was treated. Such candidates may be great advocates for their own kids, but lack a broader interest in the success of all students.

Never thought about this, but I agree.  On the other hand, if a personal gripe got a person motivated enough to run and to want to make a difference, who am I to say that they won't take the entirety of the job to heart?  Be wary, I agree; but don't write them off.

— Can the candidates work as part of a team? Everyone loves a rebel, but at some point board members have to work together to pass policy, hire superintendents and create goals for students. A board overrun with mavericks provides great drama but few results. And somebody usually ends up in court.

What if the board is already rife with mavericks?  A person who is abrasive and contentious likely won't get the position to begin with, so this one seems to me a bit ridiculous.

— Can the candidates put forth any proposals to improve student learning that don’t require piles of cash? Because there won’t be piles. Anywhere. For a long time.

Amen.  But again, can we please, please please define "improve student learning"? Anyone?

— Listen carefully when candidates talk about their goals. Are they compliance-driven — do they talk about meeting the mandates set by the state Department of Education? Or are they performance-driven — do they focus on how to get students achieving not only to the state bar, but to national and international levels? You don’t want schools that just comply; you want schools that perform.

True enough.  But one needs to first comply, and for a district that is far enough from compliance that this is an election issue, I'd prefer someone with a plan for getting back on track than someone with a lofty goal for "once we get there."

— What is their broader vision for the schools? And how will they hold the superintendent accountable for acting on the vision? Candidates ought to spell out specific sets of measures they’d use to assess whether superintendents are doing a good job.

THIS has been a particularly important issue for the system in which I applied for the position, and tricky at best.  I don't know that any one candidate can have this solved, but to have not given it any thought would be a big red flag.

— What do they know about the range of programs offered to students? For instance, are they aware of the state’s Virtual High School? If so, can they tell you how many high schoolers in the district are taking Advanced Placement courses online? Can they report how many kids are taking AP classes, period? Do they know why it’s important for students to not only take AP classes, but to take and score high on AP tests?

Again, perhaps too detail-focused.  I'm okay with a candidate knowing the gist of these figures.  Anyone can say "we need more kids taking AP courses."

— Do they have other sources of income or are they regarding the school board stipend as their livelihood? As a rule, people with dire money problems — houses in foreclosure, no clear source of income, collection agencies at their heels — don’t make effective boardmembers. They ought to straighten out their own finances before they manage a district’s finances. (One tip: If a candidate’s phone has been disconnected, he or she is not a good bet.)

Yikes!  In this economy, and for personal reasons, I am perhaps more forgiving of imperfect credit than many folks might be.  But a disconnected phone?!  There's a difference between having had a rough time, and being in trouble presently or persistently. 

— Is the candidate a current or retired school employee? In concept, boards are supposed to give parents a hand in their local schools, but they’ve come to be dominated by educators. That skews the focus of boards from student concerns to teacher concerns. Look for candidates without financial ties to the school system, either their own or family members.

As a former teacher, I have not seen this as a problem, only because I've not seen it.  I'm not a teacher-union kind of person to begin with, but I have actually often thought we need more former teachers on the boards, and not fewer; too many things are blamed on and forced on teachers without any real understanding of the day-to-day implications (or whether it will even make a difference other than to push paper)!

–Watch for the perennial candidates who envision a career in politics and are looking for any foothold. School boards require people willing to slog through reports, scrutinize budgets and read the fine print. Don’t waste a vote on someone who sees the board as way to get their name in the paper on their way to the Legislature.

Amen...

— On the other hand, beware  of lifers. After two decades or more, a member ought to step down and make room for new voices and ideas.

... and again.

A Little Bit About Tenure

Let me begin by saying that although I have taught in systems that offered tenure, I have never stayed in any one place long enough to be eligible for it.  So I am writing this as a chronically, if you will, non-tenured-but-not-unhappy teacher.

My husband and I were driving the other day and flipping among a few Sirius Satellite radio stations.  At one point we lingered on Fox News (if you have to criticize me, hey, at least I'm being honest here) and caught an interview with a gentleman from California.  The subject was teacher tenure. For the life of me I can't remember his name, or who the interviewer was, so forgive me for that.

The Fox interviewer seemed hung up on bad teachers who have tenure and are forever employed, and are hurting our students.  The gentleman from California tried in vain to explain that tenure does not mean that your job is guaranteed, but rather that you're entitled to due process.  Shame on the reporter, because she wouldn't listen to the man, and she was, dare I say it, quite wrong.

So, let me explain this:

ALL TENURE MEANS IS THAT YOUR EMPLOYER HAS TO HAVE CAUSE TO FIRE YOU, AND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS.  THIS IS IN CONTRAST TO EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL, WHERE YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO KNOW WHY YOU ARE BEING FIRED, OR TO ANY APPEAL.

I have no idea why this is so difficult for everyone to understand, and I struggle with the idea that "tenured teachers are the root of all evil," as that particular Fox News interviewer would apparently have us believe.

So let's break this down.

First:  People think that tenure means you are guaranteed your job forever.  Please see the bold, above.  As far as I know, the only person on this earth who is guaranteed to hold his job 'til death is the Dalai Lama.  If you are a tenured teacher, that means that in order to fire you, the school system needs to show just cause, and you are entitled to due process.  In English, that simply means that you are entitled to know why you are being fired, and to some sort of an appeals process.  You still can be fired.

Second:  In reality, though, it is probably true that many teachers with tenure correctly consider themselves "unfire-able,"  not because they can't be fired, but because school systems won't/don't fire them.  Schools and administrators have been historically lax about starting the requisite paper trail to provide cause.  Yes, this is anecdotal evidence, but until the past few years, every administrator with whom I have discussed this issue had the attitude of "we know so-and-so could be better, but to really document it all would be so much work, it's not worth it."  So the lousy teacher who just so happens to have tenure, gets to keep at it.

Third:  There are many "offenses" which people would think count as cause, but which in reality are not.  A prime example of this, and something I've heard tossed about more and more lately, is the hypothetical teacher who chooses to serve none of his or her assigned duties.  Folks, unless this is a line-item in your contract, it's not a fire-able offense.  I worked in New England where every expectation was defined in our contract, and if it wasn't there, we couldn't be required to do it, and that was for a non-union position!  I am quite positive that unionized systems define job duties even more specifically.  I've also worked in Georgia and Alabama, where we had the catch-all on our contract, "and other duties as assigned," which I always found to be beyond b.s., and likely unenforceable.  Did they mean to tell me that if the principal told me I was suddenly to scrub the toilets every afternoon, I would have to do it?

Fourth:  Just because someone is tenured does not automatically make them a lousy teacher!  The news media seems to make this straight-line connection, and it's simply not correct.  Are there lousy tenured teachers?  Of course!  Are there lousy non-tenured teachers?  Yep!  And guess what, folks?  The non-tenured teachers get to keep changing systems -- they are still teaching, just the same as the tenured teachers!  It's not tenure that's the problem, it's the poor teachers.

Moral of the story: if you want to be able to fire tenured teachers, and you most certainly can, you need to change two things.
One -- Change the attitudes of administrators, so that documentation is not a nightmare, and the requisite paper trail is started early.  (In fairness, the paper trail aspect is starting to change, with our teacher accountability and documentation frenzy, administrators need to be able to point to teachers who don't pull their weight, and have evidence all along.  They shouldn't realize a problem and then need to begin compiling evidence from that point forward.)
Two -- If we think certain things, such as attending meetings, being part of committees, or serving duties, should count as "cause," we need to clearly define them in the job descriptions.

Teacher Loses His Cool in Nashville

I hope this link still works. Please let me know if it doesn't.  A teacher in Nashville was filmed (undoubtedly on a cell-phone camera) essentially losing his cool.  The footage starts out where the teacher is trying to regain control of an already-gone class, and the footage ends with the teacher throwing a desk.  According to news reports, the tirade escalated to his actually throwing a desk out a window (Hmm.  Intentionally damaging state property.  Felony?) and being taken from the school in handcuffs.

I can't say I defend this teacher, and I wish the footage continued so we could all see a little more of what unfolded, and how.  I'd also like to know how the class got to this point of unruly-ness as the class period went on.

But I also can't say I haven't felt like this before, and certainly can understand how a problematic class can go from sunshine to storms in a millisecond.  I have had classes like this, and those classes have certainly and regularly had days like this, and in those instances I've called our school police officer.  In fact, in the beginning of the video I'd argue the teacher is actually trying to reason with the students, and perhaps going off the deep end -- at least a little -- in an effort to shock them into listening for at least a half a second.  They don't seem to want to do that, and his efforts backfired.  But that's my hypothesis, and I don't know that I am right.

As I can see it, the difference between me-in-my-experiences and the gentleman here, is that I called the resource officer and sat down at my desk.  (Did I want to quit?  Sure.  Was the chronic, unpunished behavior a systemic problem big enough for me to not want to come back?  Sure.  Did I quit?  No.)


(Note:  There is a not-insignificant difference between thinking to yourself,  "I am angry and frustrated enough to throw a desk!" and actually throwing said desk.  I have infrequently been the former, and never done the latter.)

Diane Ravitch

I'm reading her book.  I've had it since it came out, and I am very far behind in my personal reading.  In the meantime, check out this link.

More on this soon.

Teacher Evaluations and a Study that says ...

... at least part of what we already know or think:  that basing teacher pay in part on student performance is not effective.  Unfortunately, public education is not a miniature of a free-market economy, so that type of logic won't always work.

Here is the link to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution education blog post that explains more about it.  The links I was able to find to the actual study were broken earlier today, but here is a link to the document that explains how teacher bonuses (and eligibility for bonuses) were calculated for the POINT (Project On INcentives in Teaching) experiment.

In the meantime, here are my concerns about pay for performance models as I've seen them proposed.  I'm not opposed to them per se, but I've never seen a model that answers my questions below.  I don't have time to elaborate at the moment, but I'll break these down in future posts.

1.  Who says which teachers get the good students, the ones who will do FINE on the tests regardless of their teacher?

2.  Who says which teachers get the students who won't pass the test to save their lives? 

(and how can we guard against political or retaliatory decisions playing roles in 1 and 2?)

3.  Who will control for teachers who just teach to the test and nothing else?  It puts teachers in a moral quandary:  to do what is RIGHT (that is to say, to teach the material richly and without regard for some arbitrary test), or to teach how to take a particular test?  I truly believe that one day, we will we look back and think we have failed this round of kids even worse than, say, "whole language," because all these kids know how to do is eliminate obvious wrong answers, to work backwards, and to bubble.  This testing frenzy in which we find ourselves today really scares me.  I am worried about the product we're generating.

4.  People talk about the "Value Added Model" as a solution to question 1, above.  But no one seems to talk abou the law of diminishing returns:  At some point, a teacher who has a class who is already performing at the 95th percentile, or with a 95% pass rate, or what-have-you, may not be able to increase that significantly, through no fault of her own.  I've not seen a model that addresses this (valid) concern.  Is the trade-off that "you get the good kids, you earn less?"  If it is, that's fine -- but no one has said that.

I am not opposed to a system of merit pay.  In fact, I worked under one years ago and, though it needed some tweaks, I really really appreciated that I made a difference in my salary -- and by the same token, idiots and freeloaders were making that choice, with consequences, as well.  (As compared to the public schools in which you can completely shirk off hall duty, or what have you, because there are virtually no meaningful consequences.)  I absolutely support merit pay.  I am just not sure how we can get there with the element of test scores.  I really do think about this a lot, because I hate to complain without proposing a solution.  I'll keep thinking.  I want to be a part of the solution.

New Jersey's Going to Test its Teachers

A Facebook friend posted  this link about education reform efforts in New Jersey.  Governor Christie "unveiled a tough-love reform package that will make classroom achievement — not seniority or tenure — the basis for pay hikes and career advancement in Garden State public schools."  


One of the things the article mentions is that teachers of kindergarten through fifth grade will actually have to pass tests in reading and math in order to be certified.  I am sure there is going to be quite the backlash about this.  No one wants to say that their teachers don't need to be smart or knowledgeable, but the argument will be that elementary school teachers need not be experts on higher-level math;  rather, they need to know how to teach basic concepts.  It will go along the lines that an elementary school teacher doesn't need to pass a calculus exam, for example.  


I'll be honest:  I am on the fence about this one.  


Why?  Simple: we don't yet know the level of the tests.  Too easy and it's just a hoop.  Too difficult, and we fall into the argument above.  I definitely believe in testing our teachers.  But New Jersey already requires the Praxis.  See here.  What will this proposed new exam do differently?


The same anti-content argument is often given for high school math teachers who are getting their masters' degrees:  Why do they need to take graduate-level math courses?  Why not take courses on pedagogy in high school content areas such as Algebra 2?  


I happen to agree that we need more education courses that focus on "how" to teach.  Conferences and workshops are expensive and most teachers don't get to go to them with any regularity.  Why not incorporate that type of dynamic learning-how-to-teach with more frequency and depth than most programs presently offer?  Great point.  But I still want teachers know fundamentally know their material.  


So, let's separate these issues.  


First:  Ideally, all teachers would have content-area expertise.  But if you're working with a finite number of courses that fit within a degree program, the "one or the other" decision is often the issue.  


Second:  If I have to choose, I'd rather have a competent teacher who has a proficient knowledge of the material he or she is actually teaching, and expertise on how to actually teach it, as compared to a teacher who knows the material and took x, y, or z upper-level classes, but who would have benefited more from a more practical methods, practicum, or workshop-style class.  


Elementary school kids are in comprehensive classrooms most of the time:  they have one teacher for all subjects.  It simply is not practical to expect the teachers to have graduate-level knowledge of history, reading, math, and science.  They do, however, need to know how to reach kids with the most basic of concepts -- stuff we as adults take for granted is often quite difficult to teach.


And let's not forget, we don't yet know what level of competency New Jersey elementary school teachers will be expected to have.  Kindergarten teachers may not need to pass calculus tests, after all.  But a functional literacy would be nice, and I don't think we should stop with math and reading.  We need to test the four basics: reading, math, science, and social studies.  Quite frankly, I have seen dishearteningly many elementary school teachers who don't have even that.  The teachers can't competently teach fractions because they barely understand them themselves.  I have neighbors whose daughter routinely brought home letters from her teacher to her parents, and the letters were rife with grammatical errors.  I do not think it's too much to ask for an elementary school teacher to know when and how to use an apostrophe, or the difference between "there" and "their" (nevermind "they're"!).  


So, where do I stand?  I support competency testing.  I like New Jersey's approach, and it will be interesting to see what level of knowledge the teacher-candidates are required to have.  I am also very curious about how this will affect their current Praxis requirements, and whether it will be redundant.  It is imperative that our teachers are literate, and too many are not. But I also think that we need more "how to teach," and if it comes at the expense of upper-level content-area work, well, for today, that's a trade-off I will take.  


On a personal note, I had to take a basic skills test to get my teaching certification in Alabama.  I was offended by the ridiculous level of the questions.  Things along the lines of "Read this memo from a manager to a group of employees."  At the bottom of the memo it would say "Be sure when moving inventory that you do not use the red cart."*  Then the question would ask "Which piece of equipment should an employee not use when taking inventory?"  The test was a waste of my time, and to paraphrase Billy Madison, I was stupider for having had to sit through it.  But people failed.  And that is scary.


*I made this question up completely.  But it is similar in style and difficulty to the questions I was asked.  

Question 2: Can you give a specific example where something didn't work?

Question 2: Can you give a specific example where something that the board required didn't work, but the board didn't know about it? (this question is paraphrased.)

Answer: Off the top of my head, no, and if I had a student example I would be barred from sharing it for reasons of confidentiality. But wait. Yes, there is an example. We have this procedure called RTI. I've alternately heard it called Response to Intervention and here in our school system, Response to Instruction. The idea is that you have a student who is struggling, who needs help, and you as the teacher go to the counselor or the administrators and ask, "what can we do?"

And instead of being given the help you need to help this student, you're given a procedure that you have to follow where, if you're any good as a teacher at all, you've already done steps 1-3 on your own. Steps 1-3 give specific types and examples of interventions you can take. Call home, offer tutoring, extend time, monitor homework, modify assignments, etc., etc. But now there's this line drawn in the sand, and in order to "document" that you're trying to help this student, you have to go back to step 1? You're a good teacher, and that's why you're here. You've been trained and you've done this for years, and you've already made all the modifications and done all the little interventions and realized that they are not working. So you ask for help and now, to formalize the process, instead of being able to sign off that you've tried those interventions, you're told to start from scratch for two or three weeks and let's see how they work and then go to the next step.

WHAT THE HECK?!?! You're a good teacher! You don't go to the administration every time a kid isn't doing his or her homework, you work through the countless little things in your bag of tricks to get the kid back on track! Now you've reached a point where you say, "look, we need Suzy Q and Junior to be successful, and we need to do more," and you're actually told to step a few paces backwards? And the clock is ticking, and these students are falling farther and farther off course.

No, that doesn't make sense. And the board needs to know it. Why can't we as teachers do something along the lines of signing an affidavit that we have already tried the following interventions, believe we are now at step (blank) of the process, and are seeking increased support? We are all here because we want to help our students succeed and this RTI procedure, while it purports to do that in a formal, documentable manner, actually does quite the opposite when you get down to the nitty-gritty: it imposes an unnecessary wait period, and unnecessary redundancies that only harm the student in question.

So, there you have it. RTI is an example of something that can be fixed with a little common sense and -- again -- a little input from teachers on what is, and is not, working. It is broken, yes, but it is precisely the kind of thing that candid input "from the troops" would identify and be able to solve virtually instantly.

Question 1: How can a school board know that its system is meeting its goals?

I said I would blog about the questions. I intend to number them so you can find the posts easily, but I don't know that this is the order in which I was asked the questions.

Question: How can a school board know that the school system is meeting its goals?

Answer: Go to the people to whom you have given the responsibility to work towards the goals, and ask them. That is to say, ask the teachers. Talk with them openly about what the goals are. Help teachers to understand what it is that the board/system is hoping to achieve. When you say "increase rigor," or "increase standards," what, specifically, do you want to achieve? What, as a school board, are you expecting teachers to do towards meeting this goal? And what are teachers seeing as the top-down expectations trickle down -- how does the goal affect their daily classroom, and what do they see as working (and not) towards meeting the goal? Teachers can tell you this information in an instant, if you'd let them. Just ask. Make sure you give them a forum to be heard without fear of retaliation if they say something isn't working. You'll get your answer, and you'll also get a lot of information as to how to move forward, refining both the goal and the process of achieving it.

Quite frankly, when you run a company, you run the big picture. It's like an outline. Imagine back in junior high when you learned how to write an outline for a paper. The school board is the title. The superintendent and assistant superintendents are headers and subheaders. Principals and assistant principals are As, Bs, and Cs. But it's the teachers who fill in the details of the outline, the 1, 2, 3 line items under each sub-sub header. If you want to know if you're making your point -- or reaching your goals -- you don't read the title or the chapter titles or the section titles. You read the actual text -- looking to the facts -- and see if it does, in fact, support the titled claims.

Okay, off that analogy. Seriously, though, soooooo much of education is top-down "you will do this," and no one ever asks the teachers, "Does this make sense? How does it affect your day-to-day? What can we do to make it better?" If you want to know if you're meeting your goal, ask the teachers who are charged with making it happen. It seems to me that this logic is true of any business and this is one way in which education is actually similar to business.

To that end, here is something I wish I had said at the board meeting: Any teacher who is worth anything knows that there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Good teachers, great teachers, and amazing teachers all know that you can "play by the rules" while still bending them. And those are the teachers who get results, and who administrators and on up all love. It's not being deceptive or devious, but it's quietly saying, "okay, we need to do x, y, or z ... and I can do that this way instead of that way, and it will work a lot better." But ask any of those teachers what they do to get those results and more often than not, you won't get a specific answer about how they bent the rules.

(If you're wondering why, it's quite simple. Why make waves -- or worse, be told "no," when the fact is that you're being judged on your results, and your method is getting results that people are happy with? It's really a case of what they don't know won't hurt you -- because an idiot manager/administrator may decide that to their mind, your method isn't as good as their method, and then you're back to square one. One thing that many administrators love to do is to micromanage, and the best way to avoid being micromanaged is to avoid giving any information.)

Update:  I was told that I sound a little off-the-deep-end, break-all-the-rules-crazy here.  That's not what I mean at all, and to be perfectly clear, I am not a rule breaker.  You can't defend your actions as right if you started out by breaking a rule, and you come before your bosses already "in trouble."  That's not at all what I am talking about:  I'm talking about saying that the directive calls for [blank], and the pattern seems to be to get there [this way], but I think I could do a better job doing it [this other way].  Here's an example:  School A wants to increase standardized test scores for math.  The administration asks the math teachers to regularly use test questions in the style of the particular standardized test.  Most teachers take time out of their teaching to give "benchmark" exams, with questions that mimic the style of the standardized tests, in addition to their own tests and quizzes.  Teacher A says, "this is unnecessary, it teaches to the test, and giving these extra assessments actually wastes precious time.  I'm going to give the same style questions -- or heck, even the same questions -- as part of my homework assignments and regularly-scheduled quizzes and tests."  Result:  We spend a little bit of class time every day going over the homework questions and discussing how to break them down, kids are familiar with the style of question and not intimidated by them on tests and quizzes, they've had meaningful feedback on each question and the teacher's had a chance to incorporate formative changes because the questions came a little at a time, and we gain almost a full day of instructional time by not giving that additional "benchmark" assessment.  By the time it comes down to actually discussing real preparation for the standardized test, the students don't consider it to be nearly as daunting as they might have otherwise.  Bent the rules, but didn't break them, and the results are arguably better.  Back to the regular post.

So, most teachers won't be specific or talk about not-quite-following-the-mantra-but-following-it-closely-enough-to-ask-forgiveness-if-I-have-to. That's a shame. Because the thing is, everything in education is nebulous. Why not embrace these teachers who are, for all practical purposes, following the rules and the latest "you will do this" edict, but who are making the necessary little bends and tweaks to make it work? Why don't we acknowledge that on a classroom level, you have to make things work for your students, and let's ask these teachers what they are doing? How, exactly, are they interpreting the latest edicts to make things work so well? Instead of this culture of fear -- and make no mistake about it, teachers are quite afraid, for a litany of reasons, to be called out for breaking the rules -- why not grab hold of these rule-benders and take what they are doing, and what is working, and let other teachers (newer, less experienced, less successful) learn from them?

Heck, I have taught at four different schools and something as massive as special education was never done the same way twice, nevermind all the rest of the federal and state requirements! If Washington can't even decide what it wants or how to define it, I see no harm in saying "this is how we, in our room/school/system interpreted this requirement, and look how great we are doing!" But of course, that takes a strong administrator and a strong systemwide leadership. Defend what you believe in, what is right, and what works? It's often so much easier to follow in lockstep.

So to answer the question - if you want to know how you're doing, ask the teachers. Give them an opportunity for candid, consequence-free commentary. Let them tell you plainly what they think about your expectations, how they affect daily classroom life, what is working and what is not. Standards should be set, but how to get there needs to be a fluid, constantly-evolving process -- and quite frankly, meeting standards is a bottom-up, not top-down process.

We Need to Increase Standards

"We need to raise our standards."

"We need to increase our expectations."

If I hear those claims one more time, my brain might explode.

It is all the rage right now to say that in order to improve our schools, we need to raise our expectations, increase our standards, etc., etc. But I have yet to hear anyone -- any. one. -- explain in precise terms how they propose to do it. It is all rhetoric. Filler. Fluff. Smoke. Political jargon. It sounds great, doesn't it? "Our kids will do better if we just expect more out of them. We are failing our kids ..." oh my gosh, it goes on and on.

Here's the thing: NO ONE can (will?) define what they mean by increasing standards. Forget how to measure whether we are achieving it -- no one can define what, exactly, they want to begin with! I seriously don't know if anyone has even thought that far. I listen to education stuff all the time, and it hurts my head after a while, to think that all these -- often brilliant -- people with something to say have never thought past this simple concept. You can't solve a problem if you don't first clearly define the problem. How can we measure if we are achieving a goal if we don't have a precise description of what that goal really means?

Do we want to increase our test scores? What do we mean when we say that?

Do we want to increase the number of students who pass?

Do we want to raise the passing score?

Do we want more kids to pass at a higher level?

Do we want to increase the actual rigor of the questions on the tests we are using?

What? WHAT DOES INCREASING EXPECTATIONS MEAN?!?!

(I realize there are some who would say that it is all of the above, and that is fine, but I don't hear people saying this.)

Higher standards, schmier standards, until you define first what the standards currently are, and then, how you want to change them. Anyone with half a brain knows that you need a clearly defined problem before you can start contemplating approaches to solving it. We don't have that yet. And yet the politicians and the educrats are throwing out the battle cry and people are waving flags and cheering them on without any understanding of -- well, really, of anything.

The emperor has no clothes, folks. Won't someone (else, besides me) please say it?!

A Little Background

I said I would do this blog, and I promptly fell off the earth. It's not for a lack of stuff to talk about; quite the contrary, I dream about posts, even, I have so much I want to say! Still, I haven't given my best effort to making time to sit down at my desk to write. Here, today, I promise to do better.

And with that, let me get started.

A little background: My local school board is among the few in Alabama that is elected (as opposed to appointed). My specific district had a long-standing incumbent who was great. Well liked, highly regarded, and had her act together. I voted for her. So, while I have long thought I wanted to run for school board, running against her would have been foolish. Fast forward to about six weeks ago, and she has announced her retirement. Local ordinance provides that when a board member can't complete his or her term, the school board is to publicize the position and accept applications from the public. I applied.

It turns out that EIGHT of us applied, which was unprecedented. To help make their decision, and to keep the process as transparent as possible, the school board called a public meeting at which each of the eight candidates would speak. We were each given two minutes to talk, and then the board members asked us questions. (I should say that we were all taken to another room and brought in one at a time, so we could only hear ourselves and the people who spoke after us. It was a pretty fair way to handle things.)

I don't have terribly deep roots in my town -- as with many small towns, there are lots of folks who go back generations. But I have begun to know people, and let me say this: we LOVE our little town. So I attended the meeting not knowing at all what to expect, but realizing that to many people with deep roots, I was probably a wildcard unknown.

I think I handled the interview pretty well. There were a few questions where, looking back, I may have missed the point the interviewers were trying to make, but nonetheless I think I answered everything well. I don't regret anything I said, but in some cases I wish I had said more. I felt good about how I did.

When the interview process was over, the board voted. It took a few rounds to establish a new board member. I did not get even a single vote, but I was not the only one who garnered no votes. I was proud of what I had said, and glad I gave it a shot. Well, when the meeting was over, quite a few complete strangers sought me out to talk with me. They appreciated what I had to say, they were impressed with what I had to say, they regretted that the board hadn't given me a chance. I left the meeting and headed home to my family feeling quite on top of the world. No, I didn't get the board position, but perhaps I had started the ball rolling to get my name out there, and perhaps, to make a difference.

Over the next few posts I am going to address the questions the board asked me, and share my answers with you. I hope they'll give a good insight into how I feel about public education, and what I think we need to do -- and can often do easily -- to right our course here in this country.

Well, Here We Go

I suppose this is where I am supposed to put the "welcome, this is a work in progress, here's what I hope to do" stuff. You can use your imagination. The truth is, I have wanted to write a blog for a long time, and I've been told I NEED to write a blog for even longer. I think that I have some good stories to tell, and I hope that what I have to say (however ineloquent it may be!) can be something that people actually enjoying coming to read.

I am a former public school teacher, a non-practicing attorney, and a mom. I left teaching for a variety of reasons which will unfold over the writings of this blog, and for now, I am going to use this blog to post my thoughts about our education system. I don't intend to post on any regular schedule, but I do hope to post at least once a week. Once every few days would be even better.

I believe that the best thing we can do for our students is to tell the truth, and to tell it often. And I am never afraid to be the one to shout, "The emperor has no clothes!"

My real goal is twofold: (1) Don't write anything so stupid that I regret it;* and (2) spread the word about what a little common sense might do for our public school system in this country.

*This isn't to say I might not look back on something one day and, having evolved my thinking, believe that what I used to think is pretty stupid after I've thought more about it. That would be fine. If more information leads to a new perspective, then I am better for it.

So, as the saying goes, "Here goes nothing ... "