Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The principals of New York State are amazing. When the State Education Department began creating its "educator evaluation system," it called together the principals and showed them what it was up to. It showed them a video of guys building a plane while it was flying. This was called, in self-congratulatory parlance, "building a plane in mid-air." A few principals noticed that the guys building the exterior of the plane were wearing parachutes, but the passengers didn't have parachutes. The principals realized that they, their staff, and their students were the passengers. The ones with the parachutes were the overseers at the New York State Education Department. For them, it was a lark, but the evaluation system they created was do-or-die for the hapless passengers. The principals rose up in revolt, led by Carol Burris and Sean Feeney.

Raj Chetty, John Friedman, and Jonah Rockoff have carried out a remarkable study, but I suspect it will be misinterpreted. The main contribution of their research is quantifying the importance of teaching.

Here's a three-step recipe for how to destroy education. It maps perfectly to how to make a prodigious profit by privatizing it. It is the essential game plan of the big money boys.

This is the text of the commencement speech that Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, gave this past weekend at the Loyola University Chicago School of Education. The institute is a non-profit organization created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers. Rothstein is also the author of several books on education issues, and is senior fellow of the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law. From 1999 to 2002, he was the national education columnist of The New York Times.

Links to articles on the evaluations deal

Clarkstown North High School Principal Harry Leonardatos said his colleagues across the state are working together to show their opposition to the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR), which is already in place in some school districts.  He expects about 100 New York State Principals, maybe more, to attend this afternoon's photo shoot, which kicks off their publicity campaign to inform state legislators and the public about the shortcomings of the APPR evaluation program.

(When i wrote this, I had no idea just how deeply this would speak to people and how widely it would spread. So, I think a better title is I Dare You to Measure the Value WE Add, and I invite you to share below your value as you see it.)

A few Saturdays ago, while taking a break from the black and Latino caucus meetings in Albany, I was eating lunch with Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters. We saw the state education commissioner, John B. King Jr., having lunch three tables away. He was on his way to a meeting, but we said hello and he stopped for a few minutes so we could talk. Leonie introduced me as a parent whose child was counseled out of Harlem Success charter following 12 days of kindergarten, after the principal told me there was something wrong with him and he needed to transfer to another school.

Many discussions of "school reform" focus either on the need to provide students with choice as a way out of failing schools or on how to close or restructure the schools in order to "turn them around." For our purposes in this first paper, let's examine the underlying claim that a particular child is actually in a failing school. A school in Louisiana is given the letter grade F and we assume that children in this school are receiving a sub-standard education. Almost by definition! Yet the second part of the title of this paper, which comes from a chapter in the late Gerald W. Bracey's 2003 book "On the Death of Childhood and the Destruction of Public Schools," raises an interesting question.  Should we be confident that the letter grade F actually indicates that the quality of teaching in the school is the reason for the failure? If it is not the quality of teaching, then what is it?

There comes a time when you look at the rug on the floor, the one you've seen many times, and you see a pattern that you had never noticed before. You may have seen this squiggle or that flower, but you did not see the pattern into which the squiggles and flowers and trails of ivy combined. In American education, we can now discern the pattern on the rug. Consider the budget cuts to schools in the past four years. From the budget cuts come layoffs, rising class sizes, less time for the arts and physical education, less time for history, civics, foreign languages, and other non-tested subjects. Add on the mandates of No Child Left Behind, which demands 100 percent proficiency in math and reading and stigmatizes more than half the public schools in the nation as "failing" for not reaching an unattainable goal. Along comes the Obama administration with the Race to the Top, and the pattern on the rug gets clearer.

The UFT on April 3 filed suit in New York State Supreme Court to force the Department of Education to hand over copies of official emails, including exchanges about school closings and charter schools, that the union has been requesting since May 2010. The union cited a statement by Mayor Bloomberg that "to say that the parents shouldn't get what information is available is just an outrage," in arguing that the city's nearly two-year delay in providing the emails represents a "constructive denial" of the requests under the state's Freedom of Information law.

I have argued previously that unadjusted absolute performance measures such as proficiency rates are inappropriate for test-based assessments of schools' effectiveness, given that they tell you almost nothing about the quality of instruction schools provide, and that growth measures are the better option, albeit one that also has its own issues (e.g., they are more unstable), and must be used responsibly. In this sense, the weighting of the NYC grading system is much more defensible than most of its counterparts across the nation, at least in my view. But the system is also an example of how details matter - each school's growth portion is calculated using an unconventional, somewhat questionable approach, one that is, as yet, difficult to treat with a whole lot of confidence.

This technical report contains four main sections:  1) Data. Description of the data used to implement the student growth model, including data processing rules and relevant issues that arose during processing.  2) Model. Statistical description of the model.  3) Reporting. Description of reporting metrics and computation of effectiveness scores.  4) Results. Overview of key model results aimed at providing information on model quality and characteristics. It is important to note that results presented in this report are based on 2010-11 and prior school years' data. The model will be re-estimated with 2011-12 data when they are available"

"The charter school movement is now at a crossroads. More than 2 million students will be enrolled in charter schools in the fall - a big number for a movement that's barely 20 years old. The publicly funded, privately run schools have spread so fast, they operate more like a parallel school system in some places. The intention was to create labs for education experimentation. But the quality of charters and their record of success are mixed. Sometimes, the results aren't much different from their public counterparts. Original arguments against the business model have never dissipated, and now there are questions about whether charters are serving their initial purpose."

"Chicagoans need to understand what is happening to our school system. The mayor and his hedge fund allies are going to replace our democratically-controlled public schools with privately-run charter schools. This will have disastrous results and people need to rise up and refuse. As a parent, do you really want your child wearing a three-piece polyester suit every day to school and pay a fine every time your child's tie isn't on straight?"

"I received my 'growth score' today from the New York State Education Department. I know,  I really shouldn't care what my score is. I know 100% of my students tested at or above grade level in Math and English Language Arts.  I know my class' scores were near or at the very top of my district's scores. I know my district is also at or nearly at the top of the region's and states' scores. I know I work my heart out and push my students to excel. My students always, ALWAYS  succeed. Yet according to the NYSED my growth score is so so. I'm rated effective with a growth score of 14 out of 20. Keep in mind, my student's mean scale in math  is 708.4 and ELA it is 678.  I'm confident both scores are well above that state mean. So why did I get a mediocre growth score? The state's explanation of it's calculation should be a eye opener for all  of us."

I'm skeptical when folks who've seemed to drag their heels offer up nifty new proposals and innovations. So, I don't want to sound all "gee, whiz" here. At the same time, it's important that skepticism not morph into reflexive dismissal. With that in mind, we've seen a couple noteworthy developments from the AFT and NEA in recent days.

I always cringe when I hear so-called reformers say poverty is "no excuse" for lack of student achievement. It is not because I don't subscribe to that belief, but because I know politicians will use that message as an excuse for not "leveling the playing field" for poor children. To believe that you can treat and fund all schools in the same way meets what many call the definition of insanity--doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. From collective bargaining contracts to federal law, poverty has to be a factor in every decision that affects the education of poor children and those who educate them.

While I was gone, there were any number of classic examples of well-intentioned folks promoting bad ideas under the guise of "reform."