Don't Take Away Tenure

Some of the material in this post was adapted from an article by Karen E. Magee in the timesunion.com newspaper.


Most people outside of the education world are very confused about tenure.  They think it means that a teacher cannot be fired.  This is NOT what tenure means nor was tenure put in place for this purpose.  Tenure entitles teachers to due process to a fair hearing before an impartial third party if a district seeks to discipline or fire a teacher.  This is the same protection given to police officers, firefighters, and other public servants.   It prevents teachers from being dismissed as a result of an arbitrary or capricious whim.


In  most districts, everyone,  except employees hired under civil service and the superintendent, is eligible for tenure.  In New York State teachers and administrators earn tenure after a three-year probationary period. In public education, teachers, administrators, and other school staff must be free to speak out on important issues without fear of reprisal.  Teachers and administrators must be able to advocate for their students without fearing they can be arbitrarily dismissed for doing so.


Picture what would happen if teachers---maybe even your child's teacher---could be fired at will.  Currently, teachers are voicing their opinions about excessive standardized testing.  They are able to ask about budgets and budget cuts.  Most importantly, in communities where rising property taxes are triggering loud opposition, they don't have to worry that their school board will simply lay off the most expensive teachers---even if they happen to be the best and most experienced---so that the district saves money. 


Tenure has been loudly criticized because it has become such a burden to discipline or fire a teacher.  In New York that process has been streamlined.  In 2012 the law was amended to require all disciplinary hearings to be completed within five months.  Most cases are settled before it gets that far.


Tenure allows teachers to teach and administrators to do their jobs.  It creates an atmosphere of academic freedom--an environment in which the entire school community will thrive.

Open the GATE

    

Much of the material here is adapted from an article by Walt Gardner from November 14, 2011.


GATE or Gifted and Talented Education needs some attention in this country. According to the National Association for Gifted Children or NAGC (2007) just two cents of every $100 of Federal money in education is given to gifted education.


     What is gifted education?  Who does it target?  That is up to individual states and individual districts.  Different school districts do different things.  Only 5 states in the US require any training in gifted education. Except for Massachusetts and South Dakota all states have a definition of giftedness, but very few states provide resources and programs for the gifted. 
    
     Only in the U.S. are gifted children treated as stepchildren. Despite their growing numbers, which are now estimated at 3 million, they have no strong lobbies in Congress. As a result, they remain underresourced and underchallenged even though they are a national treasure. A report by the National Association for Gifted Children found that the brightest students are falling behind their international peers on math and reading tests ("Brightest Stall, Low Achievers Gain," The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 12). This squandering of talent is hard to understand and even harder to defend.

Up until the 1990s, gifted students were taught in separate classes. But this approach was considered elitist. Consequently, they began to be mainstreamed. However, even before then, the only initiative at the federal level to provide resources for states was the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. Although it was passed in 1988, it largely languished in the shadows. Passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, which focused almost exclusively on the lowest performing students, further hastened its obscurity. According to the National Association for Gifted Children, only 31 states require schools to identify gifted students, and just 23 earmark funding for them.


     Gifted students require differentiated instruction.  They should be taught by teachers with certification in methods proven to be effective with this population just as special education students are.  It is not elitist.  Appropriate education is different from equal education. About 3-5% of any given population will be gifted.  Right now our population is approximately 318 million people.  That means there may be about 15,900,000 gifted people here.    Now consider China.  They have a population of 1.3 billion. Their gifted population is 65 million or about a fifth of our entire population. Contrary to the American system of education, China spends a great deal of money identifying students who are gifted and providing them with great resources to develop those gifts.


     We should be identifying our gifted students and providing them with opportunities and instruction in leadership, academics, character education, and the arts.  They are our most precious resource.  They are the future of our country. I would not want the brightest people in the world to have no schooling in character ed. or leadership or citizenship.  Would you?

Budgets and Baloney or Put Your Money Where your Mouth Is

During the last few years New York schools have had to create budgets under the constraints of a tax levy limitation law. For most districts this has translated to a budget increase of about 2%.

If you consider the rising costs of insurance, fuel, and transportation, districts have had to make troubling cuts to program to keep their budgets in line.

A new report funded by the Seattle-based Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is now being published identifying 10 key ways that schools can save money. The main report is titled "Spending Money Wisely: Getting the Most From School District Budgets" and is published by the District Management Council.

I was very interested in this report. I spend a great deal of time examining each line of our budget trying to save a buck without hurting our programs. I do this with a scalpel not a machete, but sometimes cuts have to be made.

Here is their advice:
1. Calculate Academic Return on Investment: A Powerful Tool and a Great Investment
Calculating the academic return on investment (A-ROI) provides the answers to critical questions such as: How much does that initiative cost? How much learning is being achieved? Is there a more cost-effective alternative for achieving the same or better results?

There is actually a formula for this:

increase in student learning X number of students helped
________________________________________________________
money spent
2. Managing student-enrollment projections to meet class-size targets

3. Evaluating and adjusting remediation and intervention staffing levels

4. Adopting politically acceptable ways to increase class size or teachers' workload

5. Spending federal entitlement grants to leverage their flexibility

6. Adopting more-efficient and higher-quality reading programs

7. Improving the cost-effectiveness of professional development

8. Rethinking how items are purchased

9. Lowering the cost of extended learning time

10. Targeting new investments by eliminating inefficient and unsuccessful strategies

Anyone involved in their district's budget process would be insulted by these recommendations. Take #6 for example. Do they think reading directors purposely select inefficient reading programs? I must include an aside here: Many of the reading programs and supplies being used in classrooms today are published by Pearson, a giant corporation that has been very involved in the reading reform movement. What is a high quality reading program? Identify one for me.

Let's take #4. Politically acceptable ways of increasing class size. We know that a first grade class size should not exceed 20. Very few districts can afford that practice, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW IT IS EFFECTIVE.

This report is baloney. I understand fiscal responsibility and the sacred trust financial managers have when using taxpayer funds. Good education is expensive. So is poverty. Education is an investment just like a 403B or a portfolio fund. Acknowledge this fact. Then put your money where your mouth is...

For additional information on this topic please consult the "Doing More With Less" article in Education Week at the following link:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/05/07/30savings.h33.html

Doctor, Doctor---give me the cure...

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of attending the dissertation defense of an old friend. I have never attended this process. Five professors fire questions at you after they have read your thesis and you have given an oral presentation of the theoretical framework, methodology, and results of your study.

I think I was sweating profusely as I listened to each question, probing her research and her methods. I was more nervous than she was. She had completed a fascinating literacy study about students in her class finding their identities. She had created a third space in her classroom. This is a relatively new term. Wikipedia says that Third Space theory emerges from the sociocultural tradition in psychology identified with Lev Vygotsky. In educational studies, a researcher named Maniotes examined literary Third Space in a classroom where students' cultural capital merged with content of the curriculum as students backed up their arguments in literature discussions.

I think of a Third Space as being a FREE space. Years ago, in Brooklyn, we played a street game called Ringaleevio. It was kind of like tag. During the game some random object was declared a FREE space. In my neighborhood, it was the black pump by the curb. If you were touching that pump during the game, you could not be tagged. It gave you a moment of respite, to catch your breath. I think that is what the Third Space does in the classroom as well.

Well, I continued to listen to the dissertation. There were videos and transcripts of conversations with children. My friend had lessons and reflections. Then she revealed that during the course of her work, she received an evaluation score from one of her administrators that was subpar. This was because she had veered too far away from the subscribed lessons of the school.

How sad. In front of me was a dedicated and brilliant young woman who had invested years trying to create a special atmosphere in her classroom and help her students discover themselves. Yet she was judged by her supervisor as being less than excellent...less than good. What kind of system have we created?

We must repeal the Performance Review system that judges teachers using their students' test scores and some very subjective data. Do we judge a dentist on his ability by how many cavities we get? Stop the tail from wagging the dog. Evaluate teachers on their comprehensive portfolio of the work they have accomplished with students, inspiring them, not testing them.

Tests, Tests, Tests

This past week my students in grades 3-8 and all over New York State sat for the English Language Arts exams. I realize that these tests are secure documents and I cannot discuss what was on the test or reveal the texts.



I read every exam and handled letters about who was refusing to take the test and phone calls from worried parents about a particular child's test day anxiety. We had large print tests, tests in several other languages, tests given with explicit modifications for our special education students, and the test that was scribed for the student who broke her arm the day before (this seems to happen every year).

I thought the test was difficult, especially the third grade test. Difficult does not scare me. I have a great respect for rigor and welcome this into our curriculum. My concern was about what was tested. It is easy to add rigor to the curriculum. You can go so deep into a subject that you lose sight of the big picture.

I was reminded of one of my favorite stories. It is called The Seven Blind Mice by Ed. Young. It is about a group of seven blind mice who bump into a large object living near their pond. One mouse only examines the bottom of the object and thinks it is a pillar. One mouse only examines the top of the object and thinks it is a fan. One mouse only examines the front of the object and thinks it is a snake. It is only when one mouse examines the entire object that they realize this is an elephant.

This week I don't think my third graders were able to see the elephant. Many of them are still eight years old. They have spent this year reading and learning about characters, setting, and sequences of events. They had lessons on point of view and genre and I think their teachers did a great job. Questions on the test this year asked about the structure of the story. Generally, the narrative structure of a text contains a plot, theme, and resolution. Should third graders know this? Is this important for comprehension? Theme is far more difficult than main idea. Isn't that what they need to concentrate on? I know my high school students study structure and knowledge of structure leads to a deep understanding of text. Developmentally, though, should third graders learn about structure?

I think it is important to assess our students. I would like to know how each child is reading and writing. We have started a new writing program in fourth and fifth grade this year. I would like to know how effective it is. But are we measuring what needs to be measured? I would like to know if there are weaknesses in my program, across all grades. I would like to look at different groups of students and see how they are faring. Somehow, the tests that are being mandated for our students have turned into a billion dollar industry. Something is very wrong here.

Our English Language Learners

<

Over the past few years, the English Language Learner (ELL) population in my Long Island district has at least doubled. That is true for our surrounding districts as well. McRel just completed their most recent report on ELL in the US. Although I knew the ELL population was growing, I was surprised at their findings.

*There are 4.7 million ELL students in the U. S., nearly one in ten. (National Center on Ed. Statistics, 2012)
*While western states have the largest concentration of ELL students, federal data documents an increase in all but 12 states.
*More than 25% of ELL students speak a language other than Spanish. Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese, and Haitian Creole are the 3 most common languages following Spanish.

ElL's academic performance significantly lags that of their non-ELL peers. In New York, after being in the country for one year, students are required to sit for any and all state testing. So, if a child is in fourth grade, they must take the English Language Arts exam. If a student is in eleventh grade, they must sit for the U.S. History exam. I have imagined myself sitting for an exam on the history of China in Mandarin, after spending one year in the country. There is no question that I would fail.

My grandmother came to this country at the age of 15. She could not speak one word of English. English was her third language. Her accent always remained heavy and she always struggled with getting a joke in English. My grandfather arrived at 17. English was also his third language. When he was drafted into World War I, his English was still so weak that when he was involved in one of his first combat missions, he did not understand the expression, "Heads Up." He was wounded and permanently lost the use of his right hand. Somehow my grandparents were able to work hard enough to open their own factory and raise a family. I wonder what would have happened to them in the schools of today.

Students who remain in an ELL program for several years are called long-term English learners. In California this has been defined as a student who has been in the United States' schools for at least 6 years. Typically, long term ELL students have grade point averages below 2.0 and are two to three years below grade level in ELA and math. Many drop out of high school. Many general classroom teachers lack the specific knowledge and skills to bring ELLs to proficiency in the four domains of language acquisition: speaking, reading, listening, and writing. Regardless of teacher training, classroom teacher attitude towards ELLS can significantly impact the instruction they received.

When teachers did not engage ELLs as participants in classroom instruction, mainstream students followed suit and did not spur their participation or seek to work with them. Ownership of the ELL students by the teacher was critical(Yoon, B.,2008).

Only 12 states use an English Language Proficiency test. Eighteen states leave classification to the discretion of each district. In 2010-2011, 16% of kindergarteners came from households where English was not the primary language. Some researchers establish that by 2020 the number of preschool age children using or exposed to a language other than English will outpace their peers who speak only English at home (Education Week, 2013). When an awareness of this increasing need is added to the fact that critical brain development occurs between zero and five, it is not surprising that states are expanding their preschool programs.

Currently, only three states have recognized that speaking more than one language is an asset--not a liability. California, New York, and Illinois have enacted legislation to create a State Seal of Bi-literacy to affix to the diplomas of high school graduates who demonstrate a high level proficiency in one or more languages in addition to English.

Professional development and teacher training in this area is critical. Currently, 15 states have no provisions requiring teacher certification candidates to have any expertise or training in working with ELLs. Four states, including Florida require all classroom teachers to complete training in the teaching of English as a second language. This must change. Florida's certification requirement for regular and special education classroom teachers go beyond those in other states. All teaching candidates must take a minimum of 15 semester hours of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) covering 5 areas:
1) methods of teaching
2) ESOL curriculum and materials development
3) cross-cultural communication and understanding
4) applied linguistics
5) testing and evaluation of ESOL

Florida has not often been held up as a paradigm for education. In this case, let's take a page from the Sunshine State.

PISA and Poverty

<

The following information was taken from Education Week --January 8, 2014 www.edweek.org/go/commentary

The results of the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment or PISA were released last month. The results were released by Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education. He said, "Americans need to wake up to this educational reality--instead of napping at the wheel while emerging competitors prepare their students for economic leadership. Results are a picture of educational stagnation."

The scores reported were the average scores. No detailed information was released.

In 2009 when the detailed information was released important insights were released along with the data that really paint a very different picture. This information was reported by Martin Carnoy and Richard Rothstein in their report titled "What do International Tests Really Show About U.S. Student Performance?" They revealed that 38% of students who sat for the 2009 PISA were from the two lowest socioeconomic categories. That is the largest percentage of low income test takers among our comparative nations. It is a fact that students from low-income families throughout the world score far lower than students from more advantaged families on these tests. In 2009,the U.S. had the highest poverty rate--22%_- of any of the comparative nations, yet our PISA sample included 38% low-income students. If our sampling was so skewed it gives us little confidence in the validity of the test.

So how do our students' scores look when we compare them in a fairer, disaggregated manner? Much better. In fact, if you look carefully at our students' scores in comparison with those of countries with somewhat similar socioeconomic profiles France, Germany, and the United Kingdom---our lower-income students score the highest among these nations, on both the reading and the math tests. American schools with fewer than 10% low-income students score at the very top. American schools with fewer than 25% low-income students are near the top. The achievement gaps on the reading and math tests--between upper income students and lower income students are smaller in the U.S. than in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Duncan's flawed snapshot of American students' achievement is part of his unrelenting message that our mediocre schools are placing our nation's economic well-being at risk.

We are not napping Mr. Duncan. Instead of continuing with this doomsday rhetoric that serves to tear down the morale of our teachers and parents, we urge you to take a closer look at some of the successful schools in our country. There are thousands of them. Please call me if you need directions.