Group items tagged

Many of us have not heard of of the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) Formula, Connecticut's system for allocating money to our public schools. As one father admitted at the ECS Task Force Meeting on Thursday in Bridgeport, he never gave it any thought until his child started kindergarten. Roughly, this is how the formula works. It starts with a foundation amount, which is supposed to represent how much money it takes to educate one child with no special needs. Then the amount is adjusted based on the number and needs of students in a particular district. Students living in poverty, students learning English and students with disabilities all need more resources to learn, and those resources cost money - up to four times the cost of educating a child with no needs. The formula is also supposed to consider a municipality's ability to pay. If one of these components is inaccurate, then the state is not giving the proper amount of money to a municipality for its schools. In Connecticut, all of these components are grossly inadequate.

Amid the debates about our public schools and the need for education reform, the impact of poverty on student learning outcomes seems to be missing. Research has established a clear link between poverty and student performance. Yet many critics of public schools deride the poverty-achievement link as an excuse for poor teaching. What do the data show about the relationship between student poverty levels and schools' performance?

Each day this week I have presented a response to different parts of Governor McDonnell's "Opportunity to Learn" education agenda. On Monday, I gave an introduction and talked about the goal of advancing literacy in the early grades. On Tuesday, I wrote about implications for repealing the unpopular Kings Dominion Law. On Wednesday, I talked about proceeding thoughtfully and carefully with expanding choice in the Commonwealth. On Thursday, I discussed evaluating principals and teachers. This concluding post brings me to the end and back to the place where I started in the first post of this series: Money.

Welcome to Part IV of my response to Governor McDonnell's "Opportunity to Learn" education agenda-we're almost to Friday, folks! On Monday, you read about advancing literacy. On Tuesday, you read about extending the school day/ year. Yesterday, you read my thoughts on expanding school choice in Virginia. Today, I'll share my thoughts about McDonnell's ideas for evaluating, retaining, and recruiting teachers.

Forget Santa Claus and saunas, the biggest export from Finland these days is its educational system. During a two-day conference this week at Stanford University, Finnish educators discussed how they improved so dramatically and what the United States can learn from the Nordic country. Finnish education reform can be summed up in ten points, according to Pasi Sahlberg, a director at the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and author of Finnish Lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? The first nine are instructive, but it's number ten that sums it up neatly and harshly.

A few months back I got into an interesting discussion with my high school friends on Facebook about the books we read in our tenth grade advanced English class at Westhill High School in Stamford. My friend Debbie, who's clearly even more of a pack rat than my mother, still had the syllabus, and was able to rattle off impressively long list of books that we'd read and analyzed. When I compared it to the number of books my daughter, a high school sophomore, will get through this year in her advanced English class, it's really quite astounding. But actually, it's not. When I look at the school calendar, the entire month of March is lost to CMT/CAPT testing.  And that's just the actual testing. Much of the month before will be devoted to exercises that prepare students for the tests. Not for reading great works of literature and learning to use critical thinking skills, but rather for learning test taking skills.

The New York State Education Department (NYSED) is committed to providing district leaders support as they implement Student Learning Objectives (SLOs). Beginning in mid-December 2011 and running through the end of February 2012, NYSED will host a series of introductory webinars. Each webinar will introduce components of the SLO process that will help district leaders to communicate and begin the implementation process with stakeholders. The first webinar provides viewers with the following information: - the background and basics of SLOs; - the relationship between SLOs, the Common Core State Standards, Data Driven Instruction, evidence-based observations, and local measures of student achievement; and - the difference between the state/district/school/teacher's role within the SLO process.

Almost every generation has been subjected in its formative years to some "groundbreaking" pedagogical technology. In the '60s and '70s, "instructional TV was going to revolutionize everything," recalls Thomas C. Reeves, an instructional technology expert at the University of Georgia. "But the notion that a good teacher would be just as effective on videotape is not the case." Many would-be educational innovators treat technology as an end-all and be-all, making no effort to figure out how to integrate it into the classroom. "Computers, in and of themselves, do very little to aid learning," Gavriel Salomon of the University of Haifa and David Perkins of Harvard observed in 1996. Placing them in the classroom "does not automatically inspire teachers to rethink their teaching or students to adopt new modes of learning."

When Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski spoke at the first ever "Digital Learning Day" this Wednesday and pushed schools to get digital textbooks in students' hands within five years, it marked a vital recognition that technology can help us re-imagine teaching and learning. But during Super Bowl week it's equally important to admit that, as nifty (and lightweight) as digital textbooks may sound, when it comes to realizing the potential of education technology to lift student achievement, we're still on our own 5 yard line. The digital textbook push is a positive step and a meaningful sign of change, but it risks being an incremental move in a field that urgently needs transformative improvement.

In 1972 I spent considerable time interviewing individuals and groups of young children in order to learn more about how they went about solving test questions on standardized tests. My interest was spurred by the discovery that my fluent bookworm son did badly on a 3rd grade test, and that the students who left our cozy 4-room Pre-K to 3rd grade mini-program at PS 144 were scoring poorly in 3rd grade. I knew virtually nothing about tests until that experience. I was a good test-taker and assumed such tests were good at detecting my talents. I was stunned by what I learned. I wrote a publication.

The goals of the study were to make clear how school reform occurred in Chicago-showing the actual changes in the student population and teacher workforce at the schools-and to learn whether these efforts had a positive effect on student learning overall.

Failure to demonstrate a particular behavior can result in marking a lesson as not effective, even if it in fact was highly effective - the teacher observed in the words quoted at the beginning failed to put students into groups, and thus was not by the evaluation instrument effective regardless of whether the students were learning. What is ridiculous is that we have been down this precise role before.  And apparently those pushing these new approaches have learned little from the past.

Believe it or not, I wake up every morning eager to go to work. I never know what's going to happen in my classes, but I invariably look forward to them. My students never fail to surprise me. I feel privileged to introduce newcomers to my language. But now, if they don't pass tests likely designed for English speakers, I face losing my job. This is particularly disturbing because I see patterns, especially among kids who did not actually want to be uprooted, torn away from their friends, family and quite often even their parents. I had several students last year who spoke almost no English, and learned next to nothing the entire year. When I checked their records, I learned that two of them had not only passed junior high English classes (not E.S.L., but regular English), but had also passed Spanish. Without my crystal ball I can only speculate on how they managed this. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that their value-added scores would not have put me in a favorable light. Under New York State's new paradigm, two years of kids like that would leave me selling pencils on the corner.

Since the reports were released last week, the debate has been raging about whether a formula prone to as much as 53% in margin of error is the best way to judge the effectiveness of teachers. Self-proclaimed reformers say yes; those who understand teaching say otherwise. There is no question that teachers are responsible for the learning and growth that take place inside of their classrooms. However, standardized tests are just not a reliable measure of learning. If we are truly interested in increasing the quality of education, the conversation surrounding accountability must shift. Imagine if doctors were held accountable based on the death rate of their patients, regardless of environmental factors and whether prescribed treatment was followed. Imagine if firefighters were held accountable based on fire injuries and deaths, even though they didn't start the fires, their budgets had been cut and most of the homes in their district didn't have fire alarms. That would be unreasonable. So why do we only apply this impossible standard to teachers?

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.

But there is another case that teachers might make-a criticism that would level a blow to the radical overhaul of teacher evaluation, and, more importantly, one that just might help students learn. And the case is this: Achievement, as we measure it, is not really about achievement. As determined by multiple-choice tests-the dominant way that we measure it in the United States-achievement is not about how students can think or write or persuade. It is not about how they can perform experiments or produce original research. It is not about their prowess in art or civics or robotics. Instead, it is about memorized minutiae and good guesses. We accept this approach to measurement only because it is so common. And it is common not because it actually measures achievement, but because it is time-efficient and cost-effective. -iStockphoto.com/Nuno Silva Simply put, we're using the wrong instrument. Evaluating teachers through multiple-choice-based tests of student learning is like using the rules of Go Fish to assess poker skill.

"Technology is transforming American education, for good and for ill. The good comes from the ingenious ways that teachers encourage their students to engage in science projects, learn about history by seeing the events for themselves and explore their own ideas on the Internet. There are literally thousands of Internet-savvy teachers who regularly exchange ideas about enlivening classrooms to heighten student engagement in learning. The ill comes in many insidious forms."

That Facebook is hugely distracting is hardly stop-the-presses kind of news, but parents might be dismayed to learn that the social-media site can hobble learning and make kids less healthy and more depressed. 

Rocketship schools have made it their mission to close the achievement gap that holds back students in under-served communities. They practice what they call the "Rocketship Hybrid School Model," which combines traditional classroom instruction with individualized instruction through online technology and tutors in a "Learning Lab."

Ever wondered why some ideas-- however bad-- gain such traction in the media and public policy conversations? Sick of feeling frustrated and stumped for a good response when these ideas pop up on the news, at the grocery store, or around the dinner table during the holidays? Interested in learning effective ways to counter bad ideas, and promote a positive, equitable vision for American public education? In this session inspired by the insights in the book Made to Stick, we will review honest data on student achievement, the influence of socioeconomic status on achievement, and common public perceptions of education, and then learn how to make complex information more memorable and convincing for less ed-savvy audiences. Participants will walk away with concrete arguments and skills that can be used immediately to help advance a progressive vision for our schools.