In case you missed it, Fordham's Pamela Tatz published a BuzzFeed "Which Reformer Are You?" quiz the other day. The tagline: "Saving the education system, one irrelevant question at a time."
These quizzes are wildly popular on Facebook, etc. -- and self-effacing humor (something reformers don't always convey) goes a long way. Figures that Fordham would get in on it -- they're smart (and love attention).
If you haven't taken it already you should give it a try. (Doesn't really mean you're a reformer if you do.) Nearly 700 folks have already done so and shared the results on Twitter or Facebook. But be forewarned: you'll probably end up being Andy Smarick. The other options were Rick Hess, Michelle Rhee, David Coleman, Arne Duncan, or Diane Ravitch (which took some unusual answering). "A lot of folks did seem to get Andy Smarick," said Tatz via email.
Here's the Fordham page about the quiz. And click below to see the snarky writeups for each of the profiles (Smarick, Hess, Rhee, Coleman, Duncan, and Ravitch), which sound like they were written by .... Petrilli.
Another week, another conference. Next up for me is the Yale SOM Education Leadership Conference held in New Haven today and tomorrow.
Notable panelists include Matt Candler, Founder and CEO, 4.0 Schools, Jim Balfanz, President, City Year, Jonathan Gyurko, Co-Founder, Leeds Global Partners, Dave Low, Vice President - High Schools & School Reform, New Haven Federation of Teachers, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, President & CEO, Community Coalition (LA), Ken Wong, Professor of Education, Brown University, Patrick Larkin, Assistant Superintendent, Burlington Public Schools (MA). Keynote speakers at the 8th version of this event are Dr. Howard Fuller and Dr. Jeff Duncan-Andrade.
There will also be an edtech lab (3D printers for everyone!?) and a bunch of event sponsors, and a lot of recruitment and hiring going on behind the scenes. As always, feel free to come up and say hi if you see me there. Or follow along on Twitter (@YaleELC).
Previous posts: Live From The Yale SOM Education Conference (2009); Yale Conference Takeaways (2010); Notes From Yale SOM 2011; Big Shift In Focus For Yale Education Event (2012), Tweets From Yale 2013; How Organizers See The Parent Trigger.
The Spencer education journalism advisory board met on Monday to pick the next year's three fellows but the applicants --I know who got in but am holding off on saying for some reason-- are most of them still in the dark about whether they got the nod or not and the Columbia journalism school can't announce winners for another few weeks.
Why the delay? Two of the three top picks for the Spencer also applied for other prestigious journalism fellowships (Nieman, Knight, etc.), whose notification timelines could stretch as late as May.
These fellowships -- as well as the New America program -- all serve slightly different purposes. I'm partial to the Spencer for many reasons, including that it is focused on education journalism in particular and also encourages the stream of long-form education writing that's come out in recent years.
If either of the two top picks gets into one of these other programs and decides to decline the Spencer, then one of the alternates would get a spot. (That's what happened the first year, when I got a spot after Stephanie Banchero went off to Palo Alto for the year. I think that it's happened at least a couple of times since then.)
A month of waiting seems wasteful and nerve-wracking. Wouldn't it be nice if Michigan, Stanford, and Columbia could coordinate so that this doesn't happen? I mean, if charter and district schools can coordinate application deadlines and forms in some places -- and colleges can agree on some sort of window for letting students know -- then so should a handful of journalism fellowship programs.
Meantime, congrats to the folks who got picked for next year, and no hard feelings if you decide to go to Ann Arbor or Palo Alto instead of Manhattan. Someone else will happily take your place.
I had the chance to meet New America's Conor Williams the other day, during a reporting trip he took to Brooklyn. (For the record, the Tea Lounge on Union Street is still there and doesn't smell as bad as it used to.)
He's got the tweed jacket professor thing down, though he's only been at New America for about a year and came to them pretty much straight from grad school.
Since then, he's been writing up a storm: You probably saw his recent post at The Atlantic (What Applying to Charter Schools Showed Me About Inequality“). Or maybe it was this one from the Daily Beast (The Charter School Trap). He also writes for the Talking Points Memo (Why Doesn’t English Language Learning Have The Same Cachet As Pre-K?).
But his writing goes back well before his current stint at New America. You may remember him being mentioned here in the past, going all the way back to 2011: "One of the most frustrating things about the current education reform wars is the cults that form around dominant personalities." (Twilight for Education Policy's Idols). Or: "Want to hear that you hate teachers? Claim that those that do their jobs poorly should be dismissed... Want to hear that you don't care about students? Claim that poverty might be a factor worth considering for educators working with low-income students." (Ending the Education War).
More recently, on reform critics: "They need a message that goes beyond critiquing reformers and defending the miserable status quo." (The Charter School Trap)
Increasingly, his writing mixes policy, journalism, and personal narrative (Why Men Shouldn’t Wait to Have Kids). But he can go deep when the need arises; he's got a Phd in political science (take that, all you MPPs!). He's a dad, and he has some classroom experience, too. (He's a TFA alum, but you wouldn't necessarily know it from his writing.) Image courtesy New America. Tweet him at @ConorPWilliams. Personal blog here.
Longtime education guru Cynthia Brown -- I first met her when she was at the state chiefs (CCSSO) -- is now listed as a Senior Fellow at the Center on American Progress. She's cutting back on her work time, she says via email. Meantime, former Kennedy and Duncan staffer Carmel Martin is VP for policy, overseeing education and other policy areas. Which means that CAP needs a new Vice President, Education Policy. Could be an interesting gig, considering CAP's prominence and presumed role in supporting the Clinton Democratic campaign for President in 2016. Or, alternately, could be a tough spot given Martin's connections on the Hill and in the White House. Image via Flickr.
The news of the day is that the DOE has appreantly reversed itself on one of its much-discussed charter co-location decisions -- Success Academy's students aren't "on their own" after all, according to the NY Post (Flip-flop Farina now wants to help charter students).
If you want, read a little more about the shellacking that reformers have been giving this week over at NRO (School Reformers Fight Back against de Blasio). This kind of robust public response has been missing in the past from polite reformers who've seemed to be scared of their own shadows (or naive about how things get done in the real world).
Still, I still want to take a minute to address WNYC's piece earlier this week about the debate going on between charter advocates and critics, because, well, I like to complain about other peoples' work and this kind of thing keeps happening and really annoys and troubles me.
The WNYC story has several great elements, but misses badly when it comes to balance and context -- and misses out on at least one obvious connection between FFES and Eva Moscowitz's charter network.
Read below for the details.
Slate's Matthew Yglesias supports education reform and yet his Education Reform, Not "Populism" Divides Democrats speaks the wisdom that must be heeded.*
Yglesias observes that the party is not that terribly conflicted over the arcane economic issue of whether "leverage ratio" should be 10 or 8%. But, "if you want to look at a really significant ideological divide among Democrats, you should look at education." Reformers made their case and Congress didn't buy it.
So, it is time to drop the theory that test-driven teacher evaluations can advance a progressive agenda and move on.
I hope Yglesias will listen to educators' explanation of why market-driven reform failed, so that he can advance conversations about the best ways for not making the same types of mistakes in other sectors of the economy. I also would like to hear from the reformers who Yglesias mentions, especially Sen. Cory Booker and President Obama, and understand why they embraced school reform. Did they do so because corporate reformers gave them an offer they couldn't refuse, or did we teachers make mistakes that encouraged them to attack our profession so stridently?
Politicos may find this wierd, but the teacher in me keeps coming back to the question of whether we share the blame for the teacher-bashing known as "reform." Back in the 1990s, were we too slow to address the concerns of Chicago and Newark community organizers? Or, were we just in the wrong place at the wrong time and were bulldozed by the Billionaires' Boys Club?
After the break is the case that I would like to make to Ygleisas.
Against my better judgment, being a team player, I originally supported my union and the majority of teachers who endorsed NCLB. Watching the recent TeachPlus presentation, The Student and the Stopwatch, and listening to the Education Next discussion on the time devoted to testing, I wondered how many participants are doing the same thing.
Leading the discussion with Dave Driscoll, Andrew Rotherham, and TeachPlus’s Celine Coggins, Mike Petrilli kept probing, asking whether high-stakes testing was to blame for excessive test prep. I hope they are just being team players as they all seemed close to acknowledging that high stakes testing had failed.
None, however, said aloud the logical conclusion that they seemed to be approaching.
Driscoll and Rotherham described the benefits of Massachusetts’ standards based reforms and the “sea change” produced by President Clinton’s reforms of 1994. Both nailed the key reason for those successes, and both came close to articulating the reason why NCLB failed, and why a Common Core/high stakes testing train wreck is coming.
I know it’s weird, but I still have a strange curiosity about what education policy-makers think they’re doing. Eduwonk’s Whiteboard Advisors Education Insiders Survey provides some clues, albeit complicated ones.
The latest survey of movers and shakers concludes that collaboration and team building, risk taking, and decision making are the most important leadership skills. I agree with two of them, but I’d argue that the most important leadership value should be “first, do no harm” to the children you want to help.
The survey determined that the three most important technical skills of policy leaders are content expertise, communication skills, and research, analysis and evaluation. Several volunteered comments about the value of actual teaching experience, however. The bottom three answers, however, were project management, strategic planning, and implementation management.
The Whiteboard Advisors then asked the astute question of what three skills they should have focused on at the age of 25. Those answers were the opposite! The majority wished that they had focused on real-world skills involving planning, management, and implementation. All three, by the way, are skills that effective teachers and administrators practice. In doing so, many or most practitioners become more risk-adverse.
Then, the survey’s finding really got complicated. When asked the three most overrated skills, strategic planning, project management, and research and analysis were the most overrated!
NPR’s Sarah Cwiek, in The Middle Class Took Off 100 Years Ago ... Thanks to Henry Ford?, noted the centennial of Henry Ford’s policy of paying his workers $5 a day.
The policy of paying a living wage sparked a positive feedback loop which helped create middle class prosperity. Ford was not being charitable. He wanted a stable workforce.
Education research confirms the value of stable teaching forces. This is especially true of high-poverty schools where students face extreme instability in their neighborhoods.
Even so, some school reformers claim to believe that “churn” or high levels of turnover is a virtue.
Two recent studies have added to the evidence that high-dollar efforts to turnaround challenging schools have disappointed because they do not recognize the value of stability.
And a recent post from Andy Rotherham notes that class issues play a role in how reformers view stability differently than others.
You'd think from the way it sounds online these days that teaching is the worst profession ever and that teachers were leaving in droves, but this new chart from CAP suggests that's not the case:
Sure, an awful economy gets some of the credit for folks staying in the classroom even if they'd rather be doing something else. But reform critics and gullible and/or sympathetic reporters might have contributed to the apparently false impression of droves of departures more than has happened in reality. Teachers surveyed by CAP don't indicate any widespread or massive unhappiness with their treatment or with Obama era reform efforts.
One of the more interesting bits of news that you may have missed over the holidays was the announcement of findings from researchers at MIT indicating that even when schools effectively boost students' scores on standardized tests, they don't seem to do much to improve students' "fluid intelligence" -- those cognitive abilities, like working memory capacity, that can be helpfully applied across contexts.
Unfortunately, in their eagerness to strike a blow against tests some commentators have badly over-interpreted - or plainly misinterpreted - the results.
I'd like to very briefly second Alexander's recommendation to reformers that "obviously education can't be the only method of addressing income inequality" and that they should "reconnect" to the issue.
My sense, however, is that education reformers have if anything moved in the opposite direction as of late.
Perhaps sensitive to charges that they were ignoring issues like inequality, reformers seem to be increasingly taking the position that education really is the best (or only) way to address inequality.
Consider this recent piece by Josh Kraushaar in The Atlantic arguing that various reformy education policies have "proven to be a time-tested path to economic mobility". Despite the fact that it confusingly conflates inequality with economic mobility and doesn't actually provide any evidence that the reforms are "proven" to address either, the article got approving links on Twitter from StudentsFirst, among others.
It's easy to see why this is an attractive shift for reformers, since it simultaneously increases the importance of the education reforms they were already pushing and undermines the argument that they're too indifferent to inequality.
Maybe this is just something I've started noticing recently and doesn't represent a real shift. But I do feel as if reformers have been increasingly willing to tell me that education reform is the best - or only meaningful - way to address a host of problems from inequality to economic mobility to poverty.
Either way, I'm not politically savvy enough to know whether that rhetorical position will let reformers have it both ways: retaining a laser-like focus on education while also attending "the inequality party of 2014", as Alexander puts it.
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein & Co. recently gave out their Third annual Wonky awards, including think tank of the year (Kaiser), pundi (Bob Laszewski), graph of the year (the deficit shrinking), FAIL of the year, regulation of the year, etc.
There wasn't anything education-related that I saw, but the academics of the year (Saez and Piketty) have brought lots of attention to an education-related issue that reform critics especially like to bring up all the time these days: income inequality.
Last year made inequality big:
"Obama devoted a whole speech to the topic. Bill de Blasio was elected mayor of New York on a promise to fight it. The think tank closest to the administration launched a whole spin-off dedicated to studying it."
What if anything will reformers figure out to say in the face of all this newfound attention to inquality (and poverty and income mobility)?
They traditionally shy away from these issues, though many of them got into education because they thought that education could help address them -- was indeed the best method of doing so. But obviously education can't be the only method of addressing income inequality, and especially so during and after a massive recession.
Reformers may have to reconnect with why they got into education in the first place -- and even support some non-education measures like minimum wage and immigration reform -- if they don't want to be left out of the inequality party of 2014.
Flickr via KenFager
Two new(ish) power couples to start the new year and help you get through what I'm told is the most depressing weeek of the year even without the cold, etc:
First is EdWeek's Virginia "Ginny" Edwards and former Hechinger and EdSector honcho Richard Lee Colvin (top right), who announced their new status on Facebook not too long ago.
Second is Dana Goldstein and Andrei Scheinkman, who's not an education writer but we'll give him a break this time.
As you can see to the right, Goldstein and her fiance made The New York Observer’s 2014 Media Power Couples List (after having made it as power bachelors and bachelorettes three years ago).
Congrats and best wishes to all the happy couples (let me know if there are others).
For all the singletons out there, I'll close with a helpful reminder that the grass is always greener and that there are plenty of coupled-up folks who envy your freedom.
For more on this topic: 7 Actual Differences Between Being Single and Being in a Relationship.
See another MSNBC segment about philanthropy vs. public programs here.
But it just as often addresses topics that have been ignored and is unafraid to print conclusions that don't point clearly in one driection or the other.
Would that other outlets and organizations were as open-minded, even occasionally. (Actually, there are a couple of others, but not many.)
As the year winds up, the magazine has put out its "top 20" of the year but I thought I'd give you the five best to check out. Taking Back Teaching (Colvin), The Softer Side of ‘No Excuses’ (Boyd, Rose, and Maranto), Still Teaching for America (Kronholz), Gains in Teacher Quality (Goldhaber and Walch), and Toddlers and Tablets (Hernanez). Or take a look at the whole list: The Top 20 Education Next Articles of 2013.
Image via Flickr.
"The [NCTQ] report identifies "The Big Five" of classroom management: Make rules; establish structure and routines; praise students for positive behavior; address bad behavior; and maintain student behavior." (Teachers Aren't Trained to Praise Their Students The Atlantic).
In 2009, Arne was the new sheriff in town, with big boxes of ammunition and a shiny new gun. Now, it’s later in the movie and he’s all out of bullets and he’s trying to scare states by shaking a stick at them. - Rick Hess in Stephanie Simon's recent Politico piece
Here's MSNBC's Chris Hayes doing a segment about a so-called think that's mostly funded by restaurants (and opposed to raising the minimum wage) and lacks any economists on staff:
But is it the think tank's job to hire and/or commission independent degreed experts in the field and let them say what they find, or is it the media's job to make sure that readers/viewers know who funds the think tanks?
It's a question that comes up occasionally in education, and not always when the think tank leans Republican. For example, there are two think tanks with the initials EPI -- one leans right, the other (which hosts Broader Bolder) leans left, and the funding/affiliation are rarely mentioned in the press.
There are also university academics who receive not insubstantial funding from think tanks, foundations, and advocacy organizations and who don't always reveal the sources of this funding when they appear as experts (on Capitol Hill, for example).
NB: I have written reports and articles for various think tanks, including those that lean left and right.
In IPS Loses When Teachers Face Constant Moves, Chalkbeat Indiana's Scott Elliott decribes the "churn" of teachers in Indianapolis and how involuntary transfers are driving young talent out of the system.
He does not mention a common sense, though counter-intuitive, solution: Bringing back seniority.
Seniority is the teacher's First Amendment. Without it, the honest flow of information in systems dries up. Once teachers' ability to voice their professional judgments are undermined, the lack of an exchange of information is bound to produce more administrative foul-ups.
The unstoppable, ubiquotous, and ever-present Politico education team now includes former New America analyst and Mother Jones writer Maggie (@MaggieSeverns) Severns.
As you may recall, the initial Politico education team rollout was announced with one spot left open.
Some of her recent education-related pieces at Mother Jones include: ADHD Diagnoses Increased More Than 50 Percent in a Decade, Whatever Happened to the $100 Million Mark Zuckerberg Gave to Newark Schools?, Universal Preschool? Not So Fast.
Some of her Slate stories include: Reconsidering the Marshmallow Test: Willpower Isn't Just Nature, It's Nurture, and Study Offers Possible Explanation for the Huge Gender Gap in Science and Math.
As usual: Congrats, condolences.
Dan Goldhaber's and Joe Walch's Gains in Teacher Quality, in Education Next, reports the good news that incoming teachers' SAT scores are on the rise. Recruiting better educated teacher candidates is an input-driven approach that is smarter than the dubious output-driven accountability of the last two decades.
I hope we don't go overboard, however, in overrating the importance of "book smarts" in teaching. I was a critical thinking coach, who confounded some adults by playing basketball with the students. My questioning strategies anticipated Common Core and they guided teenagers with elementary school skills towards mastery of college preparatory standards.
But, education is not an affair of "the Head," but of "the Heart." The real reason why I was an effective teacher was that I didn't have biological offspring, so the students became my children.
I worked hard to become one of my school's co-MVPs. Then, we hired James Booth as a parent liaison and he was universally acclaimed as our Most Valuable Person. Mr. Booth was retired military and a basketball referee. Despite his lack of background in academics, Booth was a mentor who did far more good for far more students than any teacher, counselor, or principal.
James Booth was not an exception. Many schools' MVPs are coaches, cafeteria ladies, bus drivers, or security guards. Children learn from adults who love them. But, don't worry. Students don't discriminate against smart teachers; inner city kids, especially, appreciate it when highly educated adults show them the respect of treating them like their affluent peers. So this new generation of teachers will do fine as long as they keep their priorities straight.-JT(@drjohnthompson) Image via.
There was an amusing exchange at about the 40 minute mark of the Hess / Knowles / Duncan Common Core confab yesterday in Chicago (pictured above left).
Coming onstage to join Knowles and Duncan, Hess expressed feigned unease at appearing with Knowles, who was named one of education's hottest advocates in 2005 (pictured above right).
Knowles' response? "You can see what happens in eight or ten years, right?"
For the record, Hess was also suggested for Hot For Ed '05, but blogger Joanne Jacobs rejected the idea: "I've seen Rick Hess, and he's no Tim Knowles."
Click here for some local coverage or watch the video below. I promised you a video, after all.
I should not have to start with a disclaimer about my position on TFA (I'm undecided about it), but in these polarized times, I must. TFA teachers are teachers.
I don't judge colleagues. It is not their fault that high-profile TFA alumni who entered the classroom when they were in elementary school launched a war on teachers. Excoriating today's TFAers because Kevin Huffman and Michelle Rhee turned corporate would be like castigating a colleague because he supports the Tea Party.
However, Politico’s Stephanie Simon, in Teach for America Rises as Political Powerhouse, nails the problem with TFA's new effort for “embedding select alumni in congressional offices and in high-ranking jobs in major school districts,” in which a charter school and voucher supporter pays the $500,000 a year price tag for providing seven TFA alumni fellows for congressmen. Ethics experts call the effort “highly unusual – though not illegal,” according to Simon.
Too many reformers in general -- and high-profile TFA alumni in particular -- have have taken advantage of the lack of knowledge of many policymakers about the distant world of the inner city, and promoted quick and simplistic panaceas for complex problems.
In Simon's article, Elisa Villanueva Beard, co-CEO of Teach for America, seems to be sincerely oblivious about the dangers of quietly embedding alumni as staffers. She says “We don’t have a choice.” If TFA isn't aggressive “in 20 years, we’ll just wake up and find… we have made only incremental progress.”
And, that get's us back to the destructive essence of the contemporary reform movement. Corporate powers have immense knowledge about ways of secretly manipulating the levers of power to enrich themselves. We know how to use political trickery to increase the billionaires' share of our economic pie. Here, it seems, corporate reformers are using some of the same tactics and knowledge to manipulate government rather than improve learning. There is no reason to believe that transformationally better schools can be created this way.
That doesn't mean TFA teacher and alumni should be excluded. They should participate in the open exchange of ideas that school improvement needs. They should do so with honesty and modesty, and not with their high-profile alumni's assumption that their brief excursion into schools has given them all of the answers.
Meantime, TFA leaders should reveal the whole story to TFA teachers (and the rest of us?) and then have a heart-to-heart conversation about the paths to power that the organization should pursue, and those tactics that it should not consider. -JT(drjohnthompson) Image via.
All those DC, Philadelphia, and Chicago families considering staying in the city and sending their kids to neighborhood schools (or progressive charters) probably won't make a real dent, according to this recent Atlantic piece from last week (It Won't Work).
Why not? These changes might be good for the families being recruited into desirable schools on a small scale but "cannot substitute for reforms that address the root causes of concentrated poverty, budget shortfalls, and failing schools."
The piece focuses in on Philly's "Center City Schools Initiative," which raised enrollment at three desirable schools but displaced low-income minority families and reduced nonwhite enrollment -- and didn't have much impact on the rest of the system's enrollment, peformance or budget.
Author Maia Bloombfield Cucchiara recommends breaking down urban-metro barriers (as in Wake County), refocusing on fiscal equity, and -- hey, why not? -- attempting to overturn the 1974 Supreme Court decision that blocks urban-suburban cooperation. She doesn't have much advice about how to make these things happen, but I'm guessing there will likely be a return to some of the methods of the past in future years (as current approaches becom eless fashionable), and it's good to be reminded that "the vastly different fates of urban and suburban schools... are not inevitable."
Previous posts: Philadelphia Advocates Seek 1 Citywide School Application; What About Schools Gentrification Passes By?; Cartoon: The Secret Gentrification Plan; "When The Melting Pot Boils Over"; Middle-Income Schools Left Behind; Nobody Wins Until (White) Parents Trust Schools.
Image via Library of Congress (via The Atlantic)
Policy and advocacy have become bigger parts of many foundations' grantmaking in the past five years or so, and so it's probably worth noting that the Gates Foundation announced a new head of policy and advocacy on Friday, replacing Stefanie Sanford (who is now at the College Board).
The new hire is Gavin Payne (pictured right via LinkedIn), who's been active on California education and policy issues for several years now, and recently has been helping state ed agencies get better. See his bio in the announcement email below, or LinkedIn here. Frankly I don't know much about him. Thanks to everyone who sent me the announcement.
As you can see in the previous posts, advocacy and policy work are high-risk, high return kinds of activities, compared to old school programs and services. Ditto for more traditional/progressive advocacy efforts. Some of the Gates advocacy grants have failed; others it's probably too early to tell or mixed results.
Previous posts: Longtime Gates Staffer Heads To College Board; Gates Shifts Strategy & Schools Get Smaller Share [Reckhow]; Gates Teacher Advocacy Effort To Be Shuttered; Handy-Dandy Gates Foundation Advocacy Crib Sheet
Read all about it here via Charles Barone.
My readers are not leftists. They are teachers, parents, students, administrators, and ordinary people who don’t like to see their local public schools closed down or taken over by a private charter corporation like KIPP... They are destroying childhood. They are destroying creativity. They are destroying love of learning. - Diane Ravitch's contradictory-seeming explanation of her and her followers' views
Dan Goldhaber’s Teacher Quality Research Over the Next Decade, presented at The American Enterprise Institute on “Teacher Quality 2.0,” is a hopeful sign that research by non-educators may become more reality-based.
Goldhaber makes a plausible argument that value-added models work at the elementary level, at least in comparison with other ways of evaluating teachers. But, he cites evidence that value-added might not work quite so well at the high school level.
So, Goldhaber asks if less emphasis would have been placed on the value-added of individual teachers if research had focused on high schools rather than elementary schools.
I certainly hope that the answer would be “Of course!”
In his constructive paper on the next era of research to improve instruction, Goldhaber starts by asking how teachers will respond to value-added and, later, to technology and various reorganizations of the schooling process. He asks all the right questions about the unpredictable ways - constructive and destructive - that teachers’ practice could be altered.
But, instead of asking whether educators will make good choices, we should ask how administrators will respond to these changes.
The American Enterprise Institute's conference, Teacher Quality 2.0: Will Today's Reforms Hold Back Tomorrow's Schools? showed that the times, they are a-changing. And it's about time. If "reformers" don't admit that they are stalled in the wrong lane of history, our schools will be hurt badly.
The AEI's Rick Hess kicked off the discussion by asking whether the goal of Reform 1.0 is the evaluation of "whether you are a good classroom teacher in a conventional environment?"
Hess then summarized the ways that this "Teacher Quality 1.0" mentality could undermine online instruction, team teaching, and other ways of reorganizing schools. Hess then questioned the codification of this one-size-fits-all approach to teacher evaluation into law.
Teaching should be a team effort, and that applies to schools that serve intense concentrations of poverty and trauma, as much as it applies to the innovative schools that Hess wants. Isn't that the real harm of Reform 1.0? It had the temerity to ram through laws that constrain all types of cooperative learning across our huge and diverse democracy.
Although we disagree on most things, can advocates of the flipped classroom and of full-service community schools join together to reverse laws mandating value-added evaluations?-JT(@drjohnthompson) Image via.
AIR is the national education research outfit founded in 1946. Ed Sector is the DC think tank founded in 2005 by Andy Rotherham and Tom Toch in an attempt to meld think tank research and journalism.
After the co-founders departed around 2009, the think tank was run for a time by Richard Lee Colvin, who left Hechinger Report to take the job. John Chubb had the top job for a time, as well.
The move is being described as "joining forces" but you can read between the lines: the announcement is being made by AIR and the think tank is being overseen by an AIR honcho (Gina Burkhardt).
No word yet on what happens to Peter Cookson, the Ed Sector Managing Director.
Previous posts: Hijacking The Education Sector*; Carnegie Is The New Ed Sector; Colvin Leaves / Is Let Go From Ed Sector; When The Exec. Director Joins A Political Campaign; Rotherham Leaving Ed Sector.
Going to the PIE Policy Summit in Boston later this month? Me, too -- finally. Not invited? Too bad, it's invite-only and I had to bother them for months to get invited. Not already registered? Tough luck. It's sold out.
Then again, the event is off the record so it's not like I can tweet out whatever juicy tidbits I find without specific approval. All the more reason to come up and say hello if you're there. I'm hoping to learn a lot.
Amusing and easy as it is to bemoan Millennial self-entitlement and hyper-aggressiveness, complaining about the youngs can get old and is probably not very helpful, anyway if only because there are 95 million of them - 20 million more than Baby Boomers.
So it's a good thing to find Ron Fournier's new Atlantic Magazine article on how Millennials perceive politics and public service -- and how they might blow things up through other means. Or at least, how they want to.
Titled The Outsiders: How Can Millennials Change Washington If They Hate It?, the article notes that Millennials dislike public service and traditional political gridlock but are committed to volunteering. They're deeply suspicious of government programs -- and of Democrats as well as Republicans -- and unlikely to think of political action as a solution after what happened in Barack Obama's first term.
These trends create obvious challenges for education advocates of all types. Reform advocates are trying like mad to groom leaders for public service and elected office. Reform critics are increasingly relying on political protest to make their case.
It's possible that Millennials will change their minds over time, finding as they may that social entrepreneurship and disurptive technologies are appealing but insufficiently robust to create transformational changes. Indeed, there aren't any examples in the article of Millennials using technology or social media to accomplish things that would normally be done through public service, other than ShoutAbout.org, which I've never heard of before.
Image courtesy Atlantic Magazine.
At the end of his two-part PBS report on Common Core last week, John Merrow asks the $64,000 question: who are "they?"
Merrow starts by showing the type of classroom interactions that most teachers aspire to, as a Common Core teacher interacts with students in multimedia, multidisciplinary ways to encourage critical thinking, problem solving, good listening skills, speaking skills, and collaboration. So, there must be "reformers" who watch the segment and ask the question about educators who oppose Common Core - why are "they" resisting us?
But, Merrow and Barbara Kapinus, of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium agree that they have not been able to devise tests that assess everything that was intended. Unless "they" - policy makers - stop mistrusting teachers, the tests are likely to be misused. Since "they" intend to use Common Core for accountability, teachers are likely to be too scared to teach its standards properly. They will revert to teach-to-the-test basic skills instruction.
The interview with Kapinus raises an intriguing question question as to whether there is no single "they" who support the idea that we need a test worth teaching to. Did "they" - Education Secretary Arne Duncan and the governors - not understand what they - the testing experts - know about the problems inherent in adding stakes to tests.
Did the experts not know what "they" - the accountability hawks - do not know about standards, teaching, and assessments? If "they" - the big boys who impose one "reform" on teachers after another - understood schools, teaching and learning, would they have have understood the inherent contradiction between higher standards and a test worth teaching with?-JT (@drjohnthompson) Image via.
While segregation is decreasing in most big cities (see above) racial isolation of blacks and the number of majority-black neighborhoods are actually on the rise and the social and economic costs are enormous, according to this post in The Atlantic: The Real Cost of Segregation
As much as I respect Education Week’s Steve Sawchuk, his recent blog post article When Bad Things Happen to Good NAEP Data was a disappointment. He recounted examples of “misnaepery” or the misuse of NAEP data.
In doing so, Sawchuk demonstrated a false equivalency between egregious violations of scholarship by Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee’s Students First, and realtors trying to hype the schools in their area with the careful research of Elaine Weiss and Don Long, in their Market-Oriented Education Reforms’ Rhetoric Trumps Reality.
And, Sawchuk also tossed in the obligatory quote by Diane Ravitch in a way that implied that her scholarship was similarly questionable.
Career development and work-life balance have become big issues as the first wave of the school reform crowd leaves its 30s and 40s and begins getting married and having kids (or not) and also addressing the needs of aging parents.
So it's no surprise that one of the main examples used in the recent New York Times Sunday Magazine story about what happeend to career women who opted out in the early 2000s focuses on a school reformer named Carrie Chimerine Irvin.
She left the workforce for a time, then returned recently and now helps run something called Charter Board Partners in DC. (She and I also worked together briefly at Policy Studies Associates before I moved to the Hill.)
I'm sure there are other examples of career women in education reform who have taken time away from fulltime work for family reasons. Not everyone wants to (or can) plow through like TFA founder Wendy Kopp, who remained head of the organization despite having four children.
The Houston Chronicle's Erika Mellon, in Funder Puts Hold on $3 Million Donation to HISD, reports that the Houston Endowment notified the Houston school system that its last contribution to its expensive "Apollo 20" project has been put on hold.
The endowment seeks a meeting with the district and Harvard University researcher Roland Fryer in regard to Fryer's delay in providing an evaluation of the controversial experiment's outcomes.
Fryer issued a heated reply which, in effect, said, Scientist at Work: Do Not Disturb. The MacArthur Foundation "Genius" said that the most important thing for him, professionally, is his academic reputation. Fryer said he doesn't yet have the data required for "real Science."
If the data is not good enough for an academic publication, he sniffed, then its not good enough to show a funder. "Perhaps my standards are too high," Fryer wrote, "but I am not going to lower them for HISD."
He agreed with the suggestion that a third party might evaluate Apollo 20, "if you can find a firm or an academic willing to use the current data and put their name behind that, perhaps the right thing to do is to hire them and insist they turn around a report quickly for you."
The Houston experiment with the mass removal of teachers and extending a "No Excuses" pedagogy to traditional public schools has not gone well. Apollo 20's first year gains - modest as they were - were based on the scores of students who were tested in the spring of 2011. Second year results seemed to be even more disappointing, but Fryer did not publish a formal report on them.
Fryer protests too much. Social scientists usually are transparent in reporting the size and demographics of their original sample, as well as openly reporting the size of the sample that persisted through the full experiment. After all, it was the results of final test takers that the only formal evaluation was based on.