Education Reform #2: Tenure

Let’s talk about tenure. It is a hot topic right now and bares some scrutiny. Anyone who has watched Waiting for Superman has heard that tenure was originally created to protect college professors from being arbitrarily fired because of political reasons and reasons not linked to performance. Once a college professor made it through the vetting process and gained tenure, they were virtually untouchable. In some states, this may also be true for teachers tenured in public schools. In Missouri it isn’t so.

In Missouri, and in our district, teachers sign a contract on a yearly basis. After completing their fifth year of teaching, a teacher receives his tenure contract. This tenure contract enables the administrator to put the teacher on a different evaluation plan than non-tenured teachers. Tenured teachers still have to participate in the evaluation process, but because of the professionalism and expertise they have exhibited, they earn the right to participate in an evaluation process that is more reflective and personal. Tenure doesn’t guarantee the continued employment of a teacher. As a matter of fact, if an administrator thinks that a tenured teacher isn’t performing according to expectations, he or she may place a tenured teacher on a personal plan,  take them out of the reflective evaluation process and hold them to a more formal, scripted system of evaluation.

What tenure does, at least in my experience, is provide a required level of due process for teachers who have dedicated a substantial amount of time to a school and district and who in turn have been invested in by the district. Not only do salaries represent around 70% of a district’s expenditures, but districts and governments also spend a significant amount of money keeping teachers well-trained. Year after year teachers receive training in best practices in educating children and implement those practices in the classroom despite difficulties.  It doesn’t make fiscal sense for a district to cast out the personnel who should have the most experience and who should have the deepest understanding of the education process.

Another reason I see for due process is to provide a teacher a fair chance to reform and by default perform. I think any school administrator who genuinely cares about his or her school also cares for the personnel that serve in that school. Due process allows a teacher ample opportunity to change according to clear, specific expectations prescribed by the school administrator. Public education is about nothing if it’s not about the opportunity for a second chance. We would be remiss as educators if we did not extend that same dynamic to how we deal with our teachers.

If, after the teacher has been given due process, he is still not meeting expectations he can be fired. What this generally looks like is that the teacher being fired is “non-renewed” or just not given a contract for the next school year. In fourteen years of education I have never seen a teacher removed mid-year. Finding talent at that time of year is incredibly challenging. Think about it. If a teacher was really really good, he would probably have a job in December. After all, we start school in August.

As a concept, the way tenure is handled in Missouri isn’t bad. However, there are times when it might keep a teacher in the classroom for another year so that a school administrator can gather proper documentation. This piece is bad. A year of damage to the educational experience of a student can be recovered, but two years? That’s another story. Additionally, the process of preparing a teacher for non-renewal is labor intensive. It requires hours of work and is arduous to say the least. When you combine this process with the regular day to day madness of being a building administrator and maintaining a home-work balance, just two teachers going through due process can be overwhelming.

Here’s the thing, there is an underlying issue that no one seems to talk about in education reform. Education is about people. It isn’t about numbers, scores, performance reviews, lunches, etc. Education is about people and all of the complex relationships and emotions that drive people each and every day. Reforming education isn’t just about replacing teachers, which is the goal of repealing tenure. It is about reforming the society that contributes and creates public education. Repealing tenure won’t fix many of the issues that public education faces. I’m not sure, based on my understanding of it, that it will fix any of them. What I see most of all is that it isn’t tenure that keeps poor teachers teaching. For the cause of this dynamic I can only look in the mirror at myself and my peers. Administrators control this process. We have to love our students and schools enough to do the incredibly hard work of holding each other, our teachers, and our students accountable.

Resources:

http://www.msta.org/resources/faq.aspx?Cat_ID=119&Section=services

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randy-turner/teacher-tenure_b_1212857.html

Education Reform #1

This is the first in what I hope to be several posts regarding problems with the system of education and what we might do to fix them. Today I’m addressing grade levels and retention.

When created, grade level education seemed like a great thing to do to keep us organized. All the five year olds went with all of the other five year olds, the 8th graders with the other 8th graders, and high school students with all of the other high school students. The concept makes sense. There are some significant developmental differences in age levels, especially in the elementary grades, but truthfully these differences exist even between high school Juniors and Seniors. The issue with grade levels isn’t the inherent developmental grouping. It is that they weren’t built to ensure learning. In elementary we group by grade levels but in high schools we group by credits earned. A high school student doesn’t move on to the next level of content until he passes the current level. However, we still call him a “freshman” his first year “sophomore” his second year and so on. Though the name changes based on the year of his attendance, it is possible that a high school senior might be taking three math classes, not because he loves math, but because he can’t pass them.

Before I move on let me write this, I am not in favor of retention as it currently exists. The reason I mention this is because retention goes hand in hand with grade levels. As a principal in an Elementary school I’ve seen it work. As an administrator in a High School, I’ve seen the negative effects. I don’t think retention is the answer for any problems students face today. It isn’t logical to assume that a student will magically “get it” the second time around when he/she has already sat through 180+ hours of instruction. To make a student (or anyone else) repeat that very same process with the expectation that they will learn it the second time around without changing anything seems, well quite frankly, stupid.

However, the problem isn’t retention. Retention is a symptom of a deeper problem which is, failures. When a student fails, a number of supports have not been put in place. Discussing what to do with failures is a topic for another day, but one of the things we do now is retain. Theoretically, if a student fails one or two subjects in elementary, then they can be retained in that same grade level for another entire school year. Even if he has passed Reading, Writing, and Science, if he fails Math and Social Studies, it is possible he can be retained. Retention means he has to redo not only the courses that he failed, but the also the courses he didn’t fail. That friends, doesn’t make sense. What might be worse is that this same student fail only one subject, like math, and not get retained in the hopes of magically learning the content the second time around.

Imagine this scenario of non-retention played out year after year, from 3rd grade on, all the way until a student gets into high school. What we have told that student and his family is that it doesn’t matter if you fail, you’re still going to be able to move on. Now, we might not have actually “said” that but actions speak louder than words. When that student hits high school and has the same mentality of “they’ll pass me regardless of what I learn” he hits the brick wall of credits. In high school we say, “Sorry, son. You have to keep taking this class until you get it right.”

What we do right in the high school regarding retention is allow that student who fails math to go ahead and take the appropriate level of Science, Language Arts, and electives. So unlike the elementary model, where a retained student must complete even the courses he passed, in high school we allow him to move on.

You might be asking yourself at this point if this is really true. I assure you, it is.

You might be asking yourself, “If we don’t do this grade level business then how will we ever stay organized and what will replace it?”

Well I’ll share with you an idea that I think is probably written in the Akashic Record somewhere because I know it hasn’t only occurred to me. It’s a step by step process.

1) Keep grade levels. Grade levels are the most basic and fastest way to get at ability grouping. Most students who are retained can function socially and in some academic areas with their current same-age group. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

2) Base success in a given content area on mastery of learning objectives. You might be thinking, don’t we already do this? No, not really. Grades represent a number of things, but mostly what they represent is how a student has done on average over the course of a given class. Zeroes are averaged with 100′s. I don’t think this is an appropriate measure of success.

3) Limit retention to a given content area. If you fail math you’re only held back in math.

4) Redefine retention. Establish remedial courses outside of summer school and special education. These courses need to happen while the school day is in session, instead of regular classroom instruction, and be no less rigorous than the regular classroom. The difference is, the courses would be based on the specific needs of the retained learner. These courses would not be structured in the same way as regular classroom instruction. They would be geared specifically for the learner. Learner driven. Did I say learning enough? It has to be about learning.

5) Properly staff buildings. These remedial courses require staff. To think that a system like this can exist in the current incarnation of educational staffing just isn’t logical. Teachers do more now than they ever have in the history of United States public education. Days are full and decent teachers (not great teachers) put in over 40 hours a week. If any measure is going to work, the proper resources have to be made available. Personnel is a resource.

We have a number of problems with public ed. but not everything is broken. We have to either change the system or find ways to work within the system to effect change. Neither one is easy.

I’m a believer…

I’m not an “old dog” when it comes to public education. I’m not even close to the end of my career but I have seen my share of weird stuff, crazy situations, and self-destructive behavior. I also love a good conspiracy and can’t stop my mind from making connections between what might seem like disconnected circumstances and situations regarding the current state of public education.

When I told my parents that I was going to be a teacher I remember what my stepdad said, “Yeah, I was going to do that but you can’t make any money.” He was right, of course he was right, but I told him that my outlook for teacher pay was good. I was optimistic that people would come around to see how important public education is and what an essential role teachers play in the future of our cities and country. I was optimistic. I was a believer.

Now, after I have become salty and a little more experienced, I am still a believer. However that belief is tempered by the constant bombardment that comes at education from every direction. Good and bad, we are now, and always have been the public whipping children for everything that is wrong in our society.

Currently, this is what I see:

I see NCLB unchanged with standards for achievement set so high that no school in the nation will be able to achieve them. Keep in mind I have avoided this statement. I have privately held on to the belief that somewhere, somehow some school, some teacher, some principal somewhere would be the entity that would figure out how to get 100% of their students proficient. These miracle workers would be the ones who would figure it out and tell the rest of us how to make it work. It hasn’t happened. Obviously.

I’ve seen the huge boon federal money can be for our disadvantaged students. I’ve seen it provide personnel essential in ensuring our elementary students get diagnostic instruction necessary in helping them overcome the roadblocks created by poverty and lack of background knowledge. I’ve also seen that federal money forcefully re-allocated to areas where it wasn’t really needed and models of instruction wrecked when they had made an impact.

I also see the rise of the charter school and I see this as a significant step towards the privatization of education. This privatization seems to me to be the ultimate goal of today’s politicians. If this isn’t the case, why aren’t politicians changing legislation and funding to allow public education to do same things that charter schools can do?

I continue to experience first hand the inequities created by the state funding formula and the state’s annual decision to not fund even that inequitable formula the way it has pledged. I continue to see the impact of local economies on the quality of education and educational resources available to the local populace. Cities with strong economies have newer schools, well-funded educational programs, teachers that are better paid, and more resources for programs that educate the whole child, while poor cities do not. Poor cities cut programs because districts that serve poor areas get funding based on property values. When property values are low, funding doesn’t cover essential programs.

As long as funding for education is based on the local economy, public education creates a caste system in the United States. It isn’t talked about but it has existed for decades. It is older than the idea of charter schools and more dangerous and effective in continuing the separation of generations of people by income levels.

I’ve seen all of these issues adversely affect the type and quality of education provided for students. My mind, which won’t stop making connections, sees all of these items building towards one end. I see them building towards the dismantling of public education. I have a small but very powerful seed of fear growing in my heart over this. I think we all should. Change is coming on a pale horse and what’s scary is that, from an insider’s point of view, it doesn’t look like the kind we need.

However, I’m still a believer in public education. I’m a product of that system. I’m more and better than I ever would have been having participated in that system than I would have been without it. I believe in the opportunity for social justice afforded by public education and the difference it can make in the lives of students. I don’t believe that public education is what’s wrong with our economy and our society but I do believe that, with the right resources, public education can fix a lot of things. It always has, as broken as everyone thinks it is, public education continues to fix things. I believe it always will.

A Date with Heidi…

Ok.

So 21st Century curriculum or learning is something that is on everyone’s lips lately. I get it, I want it for our students, I see how much wider (flatter) the world is now than it was even five years ago. My ethos tells me over and over again that we are not preparing our students for the world in which they live. Schooling right now seems to me a great puzzle that continues to gain size and scope as more and more research is done. Heidi Hayes Jacobs illustrates the many facets of what we need to do and must do to properly educate the next generation of our great democracy. We have such a great responsibility to our society and are given such a great honor. If we stop to think about it for a minute it can be overwhelming.

As I read tonight I realized just how much work we have to do. All I have now is questions. The first of them, because I think I might be a level one fundamentalist, is “Really?” Really all that? All that content and all that theory, and all that social education? Really? Well, ok. Ok, I can deal with that. Then I think about my training in PLC’s and identifying essential targets and I think, really? How does that puzzle piece fit with what Jacobs and her co-authors write? How does the idea of so much content and process equate to the elementary classroom where time is of the essence and teachers sacrifice recess time for reading?

How do we do it? How does it happen when the bureaucracy of schooling changes direction about the speed of an orbiting planet?

Truthfully, I believe Jacobs and friends are right when they talk about core ideas and processes being the focus, about narrowing the scope of history, about zeroing in on ideas that changed the world and about learning language-s. I want this change to 21st century learning, like so many other educators and stakeholders, I want it so bad I can taste it. It’s a puzzle that is daring us to rip it apart and reassemble it in our own image.We are in a position to be the creators, not only of our own destinies but of those destinies closely tied to ours, those of our children.

I’m spent. End of rant.

Copyright Crazy

When we think about copyright law, we often live in fear of violation. As educators we are tasked with ensuring that our students learn and we often work to bring the outside world into our classrooms in order to make that learning more engaging and authentic. We know we might be in violation, but the visual, video, text, music, etc. that we bring in is so vital to our lesson that we take the risk of having someone from the FBI knock on our classroom doors. So what if I told you that you can use almost anything in your classroom that is copyrighted? What if I said that you can’t copyright an idea? What if I told you that copyright law was originally intended to protect the free flow and sharing of ideas?

All of these things are true. Many of the guidelines we follow regarding copyright law are exactly that, guidelines. Many of these guidelines were created by copyright holders and are not laws at all. In this day and age of digital media and networking, it is even more important that we understand how copyright works.

There are only four basic rules limiting use of copyrighted material. These are taken from the fair use section of the copyright.gov website:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. In other words, if you are using it for authentic educational purposes, you’re one-quarter of the way in the clear.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work. What was original intent of the work being used? Are we using it for that same purpose in the classroom? If not, you’re another one-quarter of the way clear.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. Are you using the entire video or are you just showing a clip? Are you copying a whole book or just a chapter or a few pages? Using only portions of copyrighted material makes you another one-quarter in the clear.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. Will your use of this material keep people from buying that item? Are you copying material instead of buying the material? If your answer to these questions is “no” then you’ve probably gained your last one-quarter of clearance.

What these rules do is open up a world of idea sharing. Knowing these rules, and having my understanding of copyright law changed makes me once again feel like we are on the verge of a technologically driven renaissance.

Having the ability to so quickly and openly share ideas through digital media exponentially increases our ability to learn. We love collaborating with our peers in our own buildings and never have enough time to do it as much as we would like. Think of expanding your collaborative group to expert teachers all over the world, sharing ideas with them and of all an entire world of educators growing exponentially together (kum-by-ya)! Feeling like technology is allowing us to network so effectively to bring about learning is incredibly exciting.

Copyright law protects our right to use and adopt ideas and philosophies created by others. Credit must be given where credit is due but Victor Hugo was exactly right when he wrote, “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” Copyright law strengthens timely ideas.

Do you feel this too? Is it just me? I often feel like I’m taking crazy pills, but this mindset was confirmed by my wife who usually balances me out. So either she and I are both crazy or we’re dead on. If you’re crazy for copyright too then check out this link:

Snow day…?

I love and hate snow days. I love snow days because of something that I have always loved, something that is child-like, something that as adults we forget about. I love snow days because they represent play. When kids get a snow day, they don’t think about that math assignment they need to turn in, or what’s for lunch, or how they’re going to reschedule that ever important lunchtime seating arrangement, they think about playing. What they think about is what they do. They play outside, they play inside, they play with toys, they play with games, they play with puzzles and play with pets. They play. Something about a snow day resonates with my inner child. That kid is constantly beating on the doors of adulthood waiting for his chance to play and be imaginative. For educators, snow days give us the chance to let that child out for a little while and take some much needed time to be creative and (I’ll probably get in trouble for this, sorry I didn’t do any laundry honey) shun some responsibility. That’s why I love snow days.

The reason I hate snow days? Because even though my inner child constantly seeks a crack in the adult armor that encases him, I am an adult. So I sleep late, eat junk, watch tv, take naps, draw, read, play computer games and shovel, shovel, shovel. Except for the shoveling, this list doesn’t sound so bad but what it represents is a break in a well rehearsed schedule that keeps me focused. I hate snow days because even though they are fun, they give me cause to enjoy a lifestyle that is a bit more hedonistic and less useful. Then, when they end (they always do) I’m out of shape for the constructive and good things I do in a life of service. The reasons I hate snow days are the same reasons I hate missing a trip to the gym. I know I’ll never get that time back and that it’s potentially forming a bad habit that will be hard to break.

So my inner child says, and I quote, “BRING ON THE SNOW DAYS!”

While my inner adult says, and I quote, “Ah, a snow day? Let’s not lose sight of what you’ve been called to do.”

Sometimes I wish we didn’t have snow days at all, but then I remember to always be thankful for a gift, even if it’s not what you asked for.

Fine Arts Update

Reprinted from the Missouri Alliance for Arts Education Newsletter:

Changes to Fine Arts Requirments Allowed through Legislative Action
by Deborah Fisher

In the last issue of the MAAE e-newsletter, it was reported that the proposed changes to MSIP 5 included changing the resource standards to a “best practices” document, in effect, taking the regulatory nature of the standards and making them voluntary.

The resource standard of primary importance to the MAAE is the requirement that school districts provide 50 minutes of visual art instruction and 50 minutes of music instruction per week in elementary schools. The document reads: “Each elementary student will receive instruction in art, music, and physical education for a minimum of 50 minutes in each area each week (25 minutes in each area for half-day kindergarten classes). These classes shall be taught by teachers certificated in these fields.”

An advocacy plan was developed to counteract this proposal at the January 15 MAAE board meeting. However (and this is an important “however”), the Missouri General Assembly passed legislation during the last session that does not allow DESE to penalize school districts undergoing the accreditation process for not meeting the resource standards.

Specifically, the legislation states that “if the Governor withholds funds from the school funding formula basic apportionment…in fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 school districts undergoing accreditation review in the fiscal year following the fiscal year of withholding shall not be penalized for failure to meet resource standards under the Missouri school improvement program.”

Follow this link to the section of the legislation relating to resource standards.

Therefore, what we were concerned would happen has already happened–at least the mechanism is in place to allow school districts to choose to follow (or not follow) the resource standard calling for a required number of minutes of visual art and music in elementary schools.

The MAAE advocacy plan asked the membership to communicate with the members of the State Board of Education. According to DESE Commissioner of Education, Dr. Chris Nicastro during the State Board of Education meeting, the Department received a “rash of letters from the fine arts people.” (See article below about the SBOE meeting.)

Our plan was implemented by MANY of our members (thank you for making our voices heard), but we should not send e-mails to the State Board about the resource standards.

Watch for e-mail updates as we determine our best course of action to advocate for a required number of minutes of arts instruction. In the meantime, please take a few minutes to answer 5 questions about changes that may be taking place in your school district.

Homeostasis?

Last week, as we were driving home, my daughter asked a simple question. “Daddy,” she said. “Isn’t it funny how things are almost always in the middle?”

Wow. Seven years old, and she already get’s the basic concepts of symmetrical-visual balance and homeostasis. Without knowing it she touched on one of the basic rules of life. All things in moderation, life tends to balance out, what goes around comes around, karma, I’m sure there are more. Subconsciously or not, we prefer things to be in balance, balance brings us a certain amount of satisfaction and joy.

The real question is this…If my seven year old gets this concept, why is it so hard for us grown ups?

Hawk Talk 11-17-10

Assessment Strategy #2: Use Examples of Strong and Weak Work:

When establishing clear learning targets, take the time to discuss strong and weak work. Examples of work can be found just about anywhere. It can come from the teacher, other students, the internet, or any other published media.
Be sure to choose work that illustrates a specific teaching point and make sure that point is tied to your specific learning objective. Be careful using student work. Work should illustrate a strength, be tied to the objective, and should NOT show grades.
Work can be shared at two different times during a lesson. At the beginning of the lesson, the work illustrates clear targets for learning. At the end of the lesson showing work may illustrate targets, but it more appropriately addresses issues that occur during the lesson. We do it at the end to put the finale on the learning. To tie all of the student thinking and learning together. We do it at the beginning to make sure they know what they are supposed to be learning.
Remember to be purposeful when students are sharing their work with the class. Make sure that this process is tied to what you want students to learn and that it illustrates a specific point.
Using examples of strong and weak work adds another, necessary layer to making sure students understand their learning goals. Without these visual aids, students may still be confused about what their final project should look like.

Values

Find Sir Ken’s link here. Then reply to this post or send an email to me regarding your values. Humboldt staff only please.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html