Group items tagged

Here are some obvious conclusions from the study: Teachers are really important. They make a lasting difference in the lives of their students. Some teachers are better than other teachers. Some are better at raising students' test scores. The problems of the study are not technical, but educational. The Chetty-Friedman-Rockoff analysis points us to an education system in which tests become even more consequential than they are now. Teachers would work in school systems with no job protection, and their jobs would depend on the rise or fall of their students' test scores.

"Can America Make It?" is the headline on the cover of the December issue of The American Prospect. The lead article is written by an old friend, Harold Meyerson, who argues that, "with the right trade and industrial policies," we can be a nation with a strong middle-class majority. It's a fascinating piece and makes me think that the debates we're having about school reform have so distracted us that we forget that a good education system depends on a strong society. There's no point in scaring 5-year-olds into thinking if you don't work hard, you won't get a good job-when in fact virtually no one (well-educated or not) is going to have a good job in the future. Except the 1 percent-or maybe it's 5 to 10 percent? Meyerson's vision is not going to be realized through reforming our schools, although they have a role to play. But it depends on whether we think having such an America is what we want to do-for all sorts of reasons. So our own grandchildren will earn decent livings, for example. So that we can sustain democracy, which in turn rests on a certain level of economic wellbeing and security.

City principals are increasingly unhappy with their jobs, according to the union that represents them. In the latest newsletter from the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, President Ernest Logan reported that 73 percent of union members are not happy with their workload, compensation, and job security. That's up from 68 percent the last time the union surveyed its members, in 2009.

By day, Wade Brosz teaches American history at an A-rated Florida middle school. By night, he is a personal trainer at 24 Hour Fitness. Brosz took the three-night a week job at the gym after his teaching salary was frozen, summer school was reduced drastically, and the state bonus for board certified teachers was cut. He figures that he and his wife, also a teacher, are making about $20,000 less teaching than expected to, combined.

"More D.C. teachers will be at risk of losing their jobs for poor performance in coming years, under a revised rating system, even though standardized test scores will carry less weight in their job evaluations. The changes - to be announced Friday - amount to the most extensive overhaul of a three-year-old evaluation system that has led to the firing of almost 400 teachers."

One of the problems that does exist is that most of us can't agree about the purpose and goals of education. Our current educational system born of the progressive movement, industrial revolution and other social developments of the late 19th and early 20th century has evolved into a patchwork of reforms and new ideas that emerge every few years, then disappear just as quickly, leaving a path of failed and sometimes conflicting practices and theories in its wake. Paradoxically, many of the reforms put in place 100 years ago are still in practice today. Through it all, it seems education has lost sight of why it exists at all. I know many teachers who believe their job is to teach skills, such as math or science, but that's far too limiting. When I was an English teacher, I never believed my job was to teach grammar and literature. My purpose was to teach students to love learning so they would become life-long learners. I've decided that even that's not thinking big enough.

I am a teacher.   You know, one of those about whom you and your Secretary of Education say are so important to our young people.  If only I - and thousands, perhaps millions of other teachers - could believe those words.   There are things your administration has done that we respect, at least most of us.  The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act meant large numbers of teachers and other public employees did not lose their jobs.  Under ARRA, for the first time ever the Federal government for two years just about met its commitment to provide 40% of the average additional costs imposed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  There was also the $10 billion in funds to support local government employment that also save some jobs.    We acknowledge these things. If only the policies your administration advocates were similarly supportive of teachers and what we see as the best interest of our students.

Over the past two years of gut-punching, teacher job satisfaction has fallen from 59 percent to 44 percent. That's according to the annual ­ MetLife Survey of the American Teacher. While this 15-point plummet is no doubt caused in part by the bad economy and budget cutting, it's also hard to overlook things like Waiting for Superman , the media deification of Michelle Rhee, and the publishing of flawed "scores" that purport to evaluate teachers based on students' test results - an offense first committed by the Los Angeles Times and now taken up by the New York Times and other New York papers. Teachers knew these evaluations were unreliable and invalid even before researchers documented those problems.

But we principals, too, are part of the problem. Not because we have promoted the use of bad data to rate teachers, but because we may have allowed our attention to stray from our chief job of promoting professional growth, training staff, documenting teacher performance, creating community and defining what quality teaching and learning look like in our schools. Newly necessary distractions like marketing and fund-raising and data analysis may have seemed more important than getting into classrooms and working with teachers on how to plan lessons and ask questions. But if we let our attention waiver from those things which we know should be our primary focus, if we asked "How can we help students earn more credits?" instead of "How can we help students learn more?" then some of the distrust we see driving this new agreement is our fault, even if we believe that is what the school system and the general public wanted us to do. We may have felt less incentive to concentrate on the quality of classroom instruction in our schools because we are rated on other things, but we know our jobs. If we chose to focus on tasks outside of instruction, it makes sense that the void such a choice created was filled by psychometricians.

As any astute reader but no automated essay scoring program might have gleaned by now, I actually do have my doubts about the automated essay scoring study. I have my doubts because I worked in the test-scoring business for the better part of fifteen years (1994-2008), and most of that job entailed making statistics dance: I saw the industry fix distribution statistics when they might have showed different results than a state wanted; I saw it fudge reliability numbers when those showed human readers weren't scoring in enough of a standardized way; and I saw it fake qualifying scores to ensure enough temporary employees were kept on projects to complete them on time even when those temporary employees were actually not qualified for the job. Given my experience in the duplicitous world of standardized test-scoring, I couldn't help but have my doubts about the statistics provided in support of the automated essay scoring study -- and, unfortunately, that study lost me with its title alone. "Contrasting State-of-the-Art Automated Scoring of Essays: Analysis," it is named, with p. 5 reemphasizing exactly what the study is supposed to be focused on: "Phase I examines the machine scoring capabilities for extended-response essays." A quick perusal of Table 3, however, on page 33, suggests that the "essays" scored in the study are barely essays at all: "Essays" tested in five of the eight sets of student responses averaged only about a hundred and fifty words.

A few days ago, Fox News personality Ann Coulter sparked outrage when she asserted that kindergarten teachers "have useless jobs," and suggested their work be turned over "to vouchers, to charter schools. They fight for every last dime, they get summers off, they're off at two, and they make more money than most of those pipefitters who no longer have jobs."

President Obama's decision to separate his jobs bill into individual pieces and push for funds to hire teachers and first responders first has so far failed to convince any Republicans lawmakers of its efficacy. And in large part, the pushback from the GOP has been fairly straightforward. As House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office argued in an email on Monday, the administration has already asked for and received billions of dollars in direct aid to states for the purposes of retaining teachers and putting firefighters and cops back to work -- and it hasn't made a lick of difference.

Job satisfaction is something we all care about. It also happens to be something we care more about when we have less and less of it. It's a hard balance to maintain because we have satisfaction when we are with our students but we lose that same satisfaction when we read negative press or hear politicians use bad education statistics in sound bites. We certainly cannot control what they say about us but we can control how we react.

Nearly 780 employees of the New York City Education Department will lose their jobs by October, in the largest single-agency layoff since Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took office in 2002.

In the most competitive market for job-hunting teachers in New Orleans in recent memory -- perhaps ever -- some worry that veteran educators have received short shrift. Several teachers who attended a recent meeting at the United Teachers of New Orleans, for instance, alleged the district has discriminated based on age in order to save money.

Randi Weingarten talked about possible impact of the $30 billion for schools included in President Obama's jobs bill, and she responded to telephone calls and electronic communications. Other topics included the No Child Left Behind waiver proposed by the Obama administration, the Occupy Wall Street protests, and the role education could play in the 2012 elections.

"Charter schools that start out doing poorly aren't likely to improve, and charters that are successful from the beginning most often stay that way, according to a new study by researchers at Stanford University. The report, done by Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) and funded by the Robertson Foundation, also found that charter management organizations on average do not do a "dramatically better" job than traditional public schools or charter schools that are individually managed."

"Earlier this year at a roundtable discussion in Colorado, Mitt Romney was talking about education-extolling the virtues of private schools and vouchers, and criticizing public schools and teachers unions. When a teacher participating in the discussion tried to offer her perspective, Romney shot back: "I didn't ask you a question." But teachers, like many other Americans, have questions about Romney's policies and proposals. They worry about their impact on the education that kids receive, because he advocates slashing education funding and privatizing public education. They question his taking credit for educational success in Massachusetts that was spurred by reforms instituted a decade before he became governor, and wonder why as a presidential candidate he is proposing entirely different, discredited education policies. They are incredulous that he says he would preserve the U.S. Department of Education only so he'd have a club to go after teachers unions, when most teachers in Massachusetts and other high-performing states are unionized. They doubt his pledges to middle-income voters because, according to numerous independent analyses, the math doesn't add up for his tax and job creation proposals. This presidential election presents a choice between starkly different visions for the future of our country."

"Did you know that our students were subjected to field tests again last week? Probably not. The New York State Education Department doesn't do an adequate job of informing parents about them. But there are four things every parent and taxpayer should know about these tests."

On April 9 we learn that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will also cancel their ALEC funding, after their current funding runs out (my emphasis and some reparagraphing throughout): Following Kraft, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Intuit, another influential sponsor of ALEC has withdrawn its support from the right-wing corporate front group. ... Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Color of Change, among others, had targeted the Gates Foundation for giving more than $375,000 to ALEC over the past two years. Well that's nice (sorta - their grant still has 17 months to go). But wait ... the Gates Foundation was funding ALEC? Why? Aren't they half-way between that wonderful Steve Jobs (blessings be upon him) and that even more wonderful Warren Buffett (likewise)? In a word, No. There's a right-wing war to destroy public education, and the Gates Foundation is in the thick of it. Again, ALEC writes the laws that bought-off state legislators get passed.