As many readers of this blog may know, I retired as of the end of June and am no longer the Neary School principal. The new Neary School principal is Kathleen Valenti -- you can find her blog here:
http://neary.nsboro.k12.ma.us/pages/Neary/School_Info/PrincipalBlog
Meanwhile, although I am now retired, I continue to be very interested in and caring about public education. I have started a new blog entitled "Murdock's EduCorner Cafe" to provide "food for thought about public education." If you are interested, you can find my new blog here:
http://educornercafe.blogspot.com/
If you are also passionate about public education, I hope to see you on the blog!
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Decision-Making About Testing Hurts Real Children
I was working today on analyzing our MCAS results from last spring and decided, just for the fun of it, to see how many of our students would have been considered to be "advanced" and "proficient" if the "cut scores" for the 4th and 5th grade tests were chosen in the same way as the cut scores for the 10th grade tests. ("Cut scores" are the scores which indicate the division between two categories -- for example, between "proficient" and "needs improvement.") The results were very interesting -- had our scores been calculated in the same manner as the 10th grade scores, 97% of our students, in both 4th and 5th grade, would have been considered "advanced and proficient" on the ELA tests, and 100% of 4th graders and 94% of 5th graders would have been considered "advanced and proficient" on the math tests. Since that's not how the scores for the grades below 10th grade are calculated, though, our actual percentages, while good, were quite a bit below that.
Meanwhile, I was talking with teachers today who were worried about a particular student, who is stressed and anxious because of his parents' concern about his MCAS scores. We have many of those students, and many parents who are concerned about the scores. In some cases, worry about these scores and worry about how their child is doing can cause parents to lose sight of many more important qualities that their child has -- perhaps she is creative, a great thinker, kind to others; perhaps he is a good practical problem-solver, skilled in getting along with others, with many passionate interests -- and focus so much on the scores that the child begins to feel that he/she isn't good enough and becomes stressed and anxious about school and about the tests.
This makes me angry. Where the performance categories on the tests are set is a decision, possibly a political decision, but certainly a decision, by someone, for some purpose. Perhaps the scores at the lower grades are set on the low end to encourage schools and students to strive for higher performance. Perhaps they are set on the low end to create the perception that schools are failing. Perhaps they are set on the low end because the people who set them genuinely believe that they know what 4th or 5th graders should be able to do. Whatever the purpose, where the scores are set is a decision. As stated by Lesley Professor William T. Stokes in his article entitled "Inside the MCAS: A Close Reading of the Fourth Grade Language Arts Test for Massachusetts,"
And, as I noted earlier, if the 10th grade cut score levels were applied to the 4th and 5th grade tests, then 97% of our students, in both 4th and 5th grade, would have been considered "advanced and proficient" on the ELA tests, and 100% of 4th graders and 94% of 5th graders would have been considered "advanced and proficient" on the math tests. For whatever reasons, the decision was made not to do that.
There may or may not be well-intentioned reasons for that decision in the political or institutional realm. But the decision hurts real children and families, and that makes me angry.
Meanwhile, I was talking with teachers today who were worried about a particular student, who is stressed and anxious because of his parents' concern about his MCAS scores. We have many of those students, and many parents who are concerned about the scores. In some cases, worry about these scores and worry about how their child is doing can cause parents to lose sight of many more important qualities that their child has -- perhaps she is creative, a great thinker, kind to others; perhaps he is a good practical problem-solver, skilled in getting along with others, with many passionate interests -- and focus so much on the scores that the child begins to feel that he/she isn't good enough and becomes stressed and anxious about school and about the tests.
This makes me angry. Where the performance categories on the tests are set is a decision, possibly a political decision, but certainly a decision, by someone, for some purpose. Perhaps the scores at the lower grades are set on the low end to encourage schools and students to strive for higher performance. Perhaps they are set on the low end to create the perception that schools are failing. Perhaps they are set on the low end because the people who set them genuinely believe that they know what 4th or 5th graders should be able to do. Whatever the purpose, where the scores are set is a decision. As stated by Lesley Professor William T. Stokes in his article entitled "Inside the MCAS: A Close Reading of the Fourth Grade Language Arts Test for Massachusetts,"
". . . The reader may wonder at the logic of this system. Why, it might be asked, are the raw score groupings unequal in number? The fact is that the conversion between raw scores and standard scores was decided by a committee of designers, consultants, and policy makers. It was decided. It was not a matter of necessity; there is nothing intrinsic to the test that requires this particular conversion. . . The reason this matters is that performance levels are reported in all the media in relation to standard scores. To obtain a score of 240 will place the student at the threshold of the "proficient" level. Thus, it makes a very great difference whether a raw score of 35 or 40 or 47 gets the student to that threshold. . . It is not my purpose here to examine the political and institutional processes that governed these decisions, so I'll leave these issues for another discussion. My concern now is to help parents and teachers understand the relationship between the reported performance of their youngsters and media presentations of disappointing results. Suffice to say that if the decision had been made to convert a raw score of 35 to a standard score of 240, then more than half of all fourth graders in Massachusetts would have been judged to be "proficient" or "advanced" -- and the public response to the tests would have been very different indeed. . ."
And, as I noted earlier, if the 10th grade cut score levels were applied to the 4th and 5th grade tests, then 97% of our students, in both 4th and 5th grade, would have been considered "advanced and proficient" on the ELA tests, and 100% of 4th graders and 94% of 5th graders would have been considered "advanced and proficient" on the math tests. For whatever reasons, the decision was made not to do that.
There may or may not be well-intentioned reasons for that decision in the political or institutional realm. But the decision hurts real children and families, and that makes me angry.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Thoughts for a New School Year
Welcome back to a new school year! To me, a new school year, a new beginning, is one of the most exciting times of the year. I always make my "new year's" resolutions at the beginning of the school year, rather than at the beginning of the calendar year, and have goals and plans for the school year. For children, too, the year marks a new beginning and new opportunities.
Recently, I was reviewing a book that I've very much enjoyed and appreciated -- Carol Dweck's Mindset: The New Psychology of Success -- and it reminded me of an NPR article I had clipped last fall relating to the mental attitude people have about learning and about struggling to learn something new. The gist of both of them, which I think is very relevant to the beginning of a new school year, is that a student's mental attitude about learning, and his/her attribution of results to effort or to ability, can make a huge difference to his/her success in learning and success in life.
Mindset begins with this scene:
The article, published on NPR, entitled "Struggle for Smarts? How Eastern And Western Cultures Tackle Learning" by Alix Spiegel (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/11/12/164793058/struggle-for-smarts-how-eastern-and-western-cultures-tackle-learning), begins with the story of a teacher in Japan who chose the student who was struggling to put his work on the board. The student continued to work until he finally succeeded, without seeming concerned about his struggle. The article continues:
If you assume that intelligence is fixed and that struggling means you are not very smart, you will tend to give up easily and avoid situations where you will be seen as not smart. On the other hand, if you believe that intelligence is fluid and you can learn by working hard, you will tend to persist and will be more likely to succeed. Other researchers have investigated the messages given to children by different kinds of praise, finding that when children are praised for their effort they learn persistence, but when they are praised for being smart they tend to persist less and give up more easily when a task is difficult. In the article, Spiegel gives another example of a mother talking to her son about his success in a piano competition, explaining his success as a result of his efforts: "You practiced and practiced with lots of energy," she tells him. "It got really hard, but you made a great effort. . ."
From everything I've read, it seems that helping students (and ourselves) avoid a fixed mindset and become more willing to struggle and learn would be a big contributor to their (and our) success, so one thing that all of us could do is be aware of our own assumptions and beliefs in this area and work on attributing success to effort and reinforcing kids in the belief that hard work will result in learning and success.
And I think I will reread Mindset in its entirety as I work on my new [school] year's resolutions. Here's to a great new year for everyone!
Recently, I was reviewing a book that I've very much enjoyed and appreciated -- Carol Dweck's Mindset: The New Psychology of Success -- and it reminded me of an NPR article I had clipped last fall relating to the mental attitude people have about learning and about struggling to learn something new. The gist of both of them, which I think is very relevant to the beginning of a new school year, is that a student's mental attitude about learning, and his/her attribution of results to effort or to ability, can make a huge difference to his/her success in learning and success in life.
Mindset begins with this scene:
"When I was a young researcher, just starting out, something happened that changed my life. I was obsessed with understanding how people cope with failures, and I decided to study it by watching how students grapple with hard problems. So I brought children one at a time to a room in their school, made them comfortable, and then gave them a series of puzzles to solve. . . I expected differences among children in how they coped with the difficulty, but I saw something I never expected. . .
"Confronted with the hard puzzles, one ten-year-old boy pulled up his chair, rubbed his hands together, smacked his lips, and cried out, "I love a challenge!". . . What's wrong with them, I wondered. I always thought you coped with failure or you didn't cope with failure. I never thought anyone loved failure. Were these alien children or were they on to something?. . .
"What did they know? They knew that human qualities, such as intellectual skills, could be cultivated through effort. And that's what they were doing -- getting smarter. Not only weren't they discouraged by failure, they didn't even think they were failing. They thought they were learning. . .
"I, on the other hand, thought human qualities were carved in stone. You were smart or you weren't. It was that simple. If you could arrange successes and avoid failures (at all costs), you could stay smart. Struggles, mistakes, perseverance were just not part of this picture. . .
"Whether human qualities are things that can be cultivated or things that are carved in stone is an old issue. What these beliefs mean for you is a new one: What are the consequences of thinking that your intelligence or personality is something you can develop, as opposed to something that is a fixed, deep-seated trait?" [emphasis added]
The article, published on NPR, entitled "Struggle for Smarts? How Eastern And Western Cultures Tackle Learning" by Alix Spiegel (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/11/12/164793058/struggle-for-smarts-how-eastern-and-western-cultures-tackle-learning), begins with the story of a teacher in Japan who chose the student who was struggling to put his work on the board. The student continued to work until he finally succeeded, without seeming concerned about his struggle. The article continues:
"In Eastern cultures. . . it's just assumed that struggle is a predictable part of the learning process. Everyone is expected to struggle in the process of learning, and so struggling becomes a chance to show that you, the student, have what it takes emotionally to resolve the problem by persisting through that struggle."
If you assume that intelligence is fixed and that struggling means you are not very smart, you will tend to give up easily and avoid situations where you will be seen as not smart. On the other hand, if you believe that intelligence is fluid and you can learn by working hard, you will tend to persist and will be more likely to succeed. Other researchers have investigated the messages given to children by different kinds of praise, finding that when children are praised for their effort they learn persistence, but when they are praised for being smart they tend to persist less and give up more easily when a task is difficult. In the article, Spiegel gives another example of a mother talking to her son about his success in a piano competition, explaining his success as a result of his efforts: "You practiced and practiced with lots of energy," she tells him. "It got really hard, but you made a great effort. . ."
From everything I've read, it seems that helping students (and ourselves) avoid a fixed mindset and become more willing to struggle and learn would be a big contributor to their (and our) success, so one thing that all of us could do is be aware of our own assumptions and beliefs in this area and work on attributing success to effort and reinforcing kids in the belief that hard work will result in learning and success.
And I think I will reread Mindset in its entirety as I work on my new [school] year's resolutions. Here's to a great new year for everyone!
Saturday, March 30, 2013
What Kids Need Most -- Sharing With Their Parents
In my last post (quite a while ago, to my embarrassment) I talked about the necessity for a good home-school partnership to support children in their learning. Recently, two events have pushed me to think even more about parent involvement and how important sharing events and activities with their parents is to children's growth and development.
The two events that got me thinking in this direction were Neary Noodle Night, which was in the beginning of February, and our Book Fair, Art Show, & Ice Cream Social in the beginning of March. Both are wonderful family events that should help to bring parents and children together and give them a good opportunity to share some of the things that are going on at school as well as to socialize with other parents and kids. Both evenings worked well that way for some families, but not as well for others, and I am doing some thinking about how to help make them work well for everybody. What happened at both events was that some parents and children spent the evening together, sharing the discussions about the baskets, chatting over dinner, or playing together in the gym at Noodle Night, shopping for books, chatting over ice cream, and looking together at the art on display at the March event, while other parents spent the evening socializing with other adults while their children ran through the halls and played with each other. Aside from the inevitable behavior problems on the part of some of the unsupervised children, I was concerned that the evening didn't seem to work as intended -- to give parents and children time for sharing a school-related event -- and am thinking about how the evenings could be restructured to work better, to be fun for both kids and adults and to create that kind of sharing.
Along these lines, I bought a book at our Book Fair that I think relates -- The Mother-Daughter Book Club by Heather Vogel Frederick. It's actually the beginning of a series, of which I have now read five, and I think it provides a great picture of parents and kids sharing an activity which at first was regarded rather negatively by the girls ("Oh, Mom! Do we have to?"), but which over time resulted in great sharing and increased closeness between the girls and their mothers and gave the parents a window into the girls' world that allowed them to further guide them in their development. (I do recommend the series, by the way -- they are enjoyable reading with some good learning and growth on the part of the main characters.) I'm wondering if we could make some changes to our family events that would foster that kind of sharing as the primary aspect of the evening. Even if kids say they want to be with their friends, deep down they actually crave sharing with a parent and that means much more to them than an evening spent playing with friends. And, as kids grow older, they need parent involvement and guidance more than ever, even if they say they don't!
The two events that got me thinking in this direction were Neary Noodle Night, which was in the beginning of February, and our Book Fair, Art Show, & Ice Cream Social in the beginning of March. Both are wonderful family events that should help to bring parents and children together and give them a good opportunity to share some of the things that are going on at school as well as to socialize with other parents and kids. Both evenings worked well that way for some families, but not as well for others, and I am doing some thinking about how to help make them work well for everybody. What happened at both events was that some parents and children spent the evening together, sharing the discussions about the baskets, chatting over dinner, or playing together in the gym at Noodle Night, shopping for books, chatting over ice cream, and looking together at the art on display at the March event, while other parents spent the evening socializing with other adults while their children ran through the halls and played with each other. Aside from the inevitable behavior problems on the part of some of the unsupervised children, I was concerned that the evening didn't seem to work as intended -- to give parents and children time for sharing a school-related event -- and am thinking about how the evenings could be restructured to work better, to be fun for both kids and adults and to create that kind of sharing.
Along these lines, I bought a book at our Book Fair that I think relates -- The Mother-Daughter Book Club by Heather Vogel Frederick. It's actually the beginning of a series, of which I have now read five, and I think it provides a great picture of parents and kids sharing an activity which at first was regarded rather negatively by the girls ("Oh, Mom! Do we have to?"), but which over time resulted in great sharing and increased closeness between the girls and their mothers and gave the parents a window into the girls' world that allowed them to further guide them in their development. (I do recommend the series, by the way -- they are enjoyable reading with some good learning and growth on the part of the main characters.) I'm wondering if we could make some changes to our family events that would foster that kind of sharing as the primary aspect of the evening. Even if kids say they want to be with their friends, deep down they actually crave sharing with a parent and that means much more to them than an evening spent playing with friends. And, as kids grow older, they need parent involvement and guidance more than ever, even if they say they don't!
Monday, November 12, 2012
"The Customer Is Always Right" and Other Myths
This weekend I took my car in to the shop for a couple of small things -- a tire change, an alignment, and replacing a burnt out bulb. When I picked up the car, I found that there had been a miscommunication and something different had been done than what I thought I had requested. I found myself getting annoyed over the miscommunication, and the manager very quickly moved to make things right. I appreciated that but was upset that I had become annoyed and crabby about the whole thing. I apologized, and so did they, and things ended on a good note. But this incident made me think about the whole saying, "The customer is always right," which of course is not true. The customer is NOT always right! Sometimes the customer is wrong! Sometimes the customer is crabby! Sometimes the customer is rude! It's a scenario in which the pendulum has perhaps swung too far, when the interactions should instead always be polite and courteous on both sides.
This incident led me to thinking about one way in education in which the pendulum has perhaps also swung too far. Years ago, it was entirely attributed to a child if he/she didn't learn. It was reasonable for a teacher to say, "I taught it, but they didn't learn it," and it was thought that some children just couldn't learn everything that others could. In my elementary school years, there was a boy in my class who was still unable to read and write by 8th grade. He sat in the last row in the back of the class and took all the same tests as everyone else, only all he did was write his name on them. We corrected each other's papers, and if you got his, all you had to do was write a big "F" on top of it. Reading this in 2012, it's appalling that no one did anything more to help him (although, of course, it's possible that someone tried and I just didn't know about it). At the time, though, it was just taken for granted that some kids were "good at school" and others weren't. (For those who are wondering, he dropped out of school as soon as he legally could, and did quite well in life.)
Now, of course, this scenario could not happen. When we have a child who is having difficulty with something, for example with reading, we do everything we can to figure out what the problem is and do everything we can to help him/her succeed. I think this is wonderful, and would never want to return to the "good old days" on this front. However, in some ways I think that the pendulum has perhaps swung too far in the other direction, where teachers and schools are accountable for everything children are accountable for too little. Sometimes the reason a child isn't learning well is that the child is not doing his/her homework, is not practicing his/her math facts, is not paying attention and working hard in class, is not managing to write down his/her assignments, and/or has been absent because of a family vacation and is not putting in the extra time needed to catch up. For children to learn well, there needs to be a solid partnership between home and school. Educators do need to do everything in their power to help children learn, going "the extra mile" and working hard to make things work for every child in their school, but children also need to put in their best efforts, doing their homework, working hard in class, and putting in extra time when needed, and parents need to help children with this, modeling it for them and reminding them about the importance of working hard. In my view, the pendulum should be in the middle -- with children supported in their learning by a good partnership between home and school.
This incident led me to thinking about one way in education in which the pendulum has perhaps also swung too far. Years ago, it was entirely attributed to a child if he/she didn't learn. It was reasonable for a teacher to say, "I taught it, but they didn't learn it," and it was thought that some children just couldn't learn everything that others could. In my elementary school years, there was a boy in my class who was still unable to read and write by 8th grade. He sat in the last row in the back of the class and took all the same tests as everyone else, only all he did was write his name on them. We corrected each other's papers, and if you got his, all you had to do was write a big "F" on top of it. Reading this in 2012, it's appalling that no one did anything more to help him (although, of course, it's possible that someone tried and I just didn't know about it). At the time, though, it was just taken for granted that some kids were "good at school" and others weren't. (For those who are wondering, he dropped out of school as soon as he legally could, and did quite well in life.)
Now, of course, this scenario could not happen. When we have a child who is having difficulty with something, for example with reading, we do everything we can to figure out what the problem is and do everything we can to help him/her succeed. I think this is wonderful, and would never want to return to the "good old days" on this front. However, in some ways I think that the pendulum has perhaps swung too far in the other direction, where teachers and schools are accountable for everything children are accountable for too little. Sometimes the reason a child isn't learning well is that the child is not doing his/her homework, is not practicing his/her math facts, is not paying attention and working hard in class, is not managing to write down his/her assignments, and/or has been absent because of a family vacation and is not putting in the extra time needed to catch up. For children to learn well, there needs to be a solid partnership between home and school. Educators do need to do everything in their power to help children learn, going "the extra mile" and working hard to make things work for every child in their school, but children also need to put in their best efforts, doing their homework, working hard in class, and putting in extra time when needed, and parents need to help children with this, modeling it for them and reminding them about the importance of working hard. In my view, the pendulum should be in the middle -- with children supported in their learning by a good partnership between home and school.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Musings About Children and Consequences
Since my last post, I've been doing some thinking about kids learning from the natural consequences of their actions and thought I'd write a bit about my own experience with that, as well as sharing a recent book that relates -- How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character, by Paul Tough. Tough's thesis is that helping children develop curiosity, perseverance, and other character traits is essential in helping them achieve success in life, and he has some interesting thoughts on that.
In my own experience, some years ago, when I was perhaps 8 or 9 years old, I went with my family to the annual county fair. I had saved up a fair amount of money for the occasion, maybe $1.25 or so, which in those days was significant. That evening, among all the rides and treats and exciting experiences, I saw a booth where you could take a chance on choosing a colored plastic duck, out of many different-colored ducks floating in a stream past the front of the booth, that would win you a wonderful stuffed animal. I was sucked in, and spent the rest of my money on chances, but did not win the stuffed animal. In tears, I told my father what had happened. He was sympathetic and caring, but did not rescue me. He did not give me more money so I could go on rides, and he and I had a conversation, sympathetic and caring on his side, but also very clear, about decision-making and choices, and the risks of gambling. I spent the rest of the evening just looking at the exhibits, except that the whole family had supper at one of the booths and at the end of the evening we all went on one ride before going home.
Looking back on this incident, it seems to me that my parents achieved an excellent balance in helping me deal with this problem. They listened, were sympathetic and caring, but did not rescue me. Instead, they helped me learn an important lesson from my choices. What would I have learned if they had rescued me? Would I have learned to think about and be responsible for the consequences of my decisions? Or would I have learned to feel entitled, and to think that someone would or should always rescue me?
As an elementary school principal, I often see parents wanting to rescue their children, to keep them from feeling sadness, discomfort, disappointment or frustration, or experiencing negative consequences. While understanding that it is difficult to see your child being unhappy, I am concerned about this trend. In the elementary years, the consequences for a child are not that large; every year, the consequences of poor decisions become larger. At 8 years old, the consequence of my poor decision-making about money was that I was unable to go on another ride that evening. At 28, as an adult, the consequences of my taking a similar risk, gambling with a large part of my funds, would have been much more serious. It was an important lesson to learn at a young age, when the consequences were relatively small. Similarly, if kids learn in elementary school that hitting another student, for example, results in missing recess, in high school they may not have to learn that lesson by being suspended or expelled. Or if they learn in the early years that not studying for tests results in lower performance, they will avoid experiencing the results of poor academic grades in the years in which academic performance has high-stakes consequences. Of course, it's always a judgment call as to how to intervene in any particular situation for a particular child, but in general it seems to me to be true that people (children, adults, all of us) learn from the results of their actions, and while taking care to be kind, caring, and gentle, we adults need to allow that to happen for kids.
In my own experience, some years ago, when I was perhaps 8 or 9 years old, I went with my family to the annual county fair. I had saved up a fair amount of money for the occasion, maybe $1.25 or so, which in those days was significant. That evening, among all the rides and treats and exciting experiences, I saw a booth where you could take a chance on choosing a colored plastic duck, out of many different-colored ducks floating in a stream past the front of the booth, that would win you a wonderful stuffed animal. I was sucked in, and spent the rest of my money on chances, but did not win the stuffed animal. In tears, I told my father what had happened. He was sympathetic and caring, but did not rescue me. He did not give me more money so I could go on rides, and he and I had a conversation, sympathetic and caring on his side, but also very clear, about decision-making and choices, and the risks of gambling. I spent the rest of the evening just looking at the exhibits, except that the whole family had supper at one of the booths and at the end of the evening we all went on one ride before going home.
Looking back on this incident, it seems to me that my parents achieved an excellent balance in helping me deal with this problem. They listened, were sympathetic and caring, but did not rescue me. Instead, they helped me learn an important lesson from my choices. What would I have learned if they had rescued me? Would I have learned to think about and be responsible for the consequences of my decisions? Or would I have learned to feel entitled, and to think that someone would or should always rescue me?
As an elementary school principal, I often see parents wanting to rescue their children, to keep them from feeling sadness, discomfort, disappointment or frustration, or experiencing negative consequences. While understanding that it is difficult to see your child being unhappy, I am concerned about this trend. In the elementary years, the consequences for a child are not that large; every year, the consequences of poor decisions become larger. At 8 years old, the consequence of my poor decision-making about money was that I was unable to go on another ride that evening. At 28, as an adult, the consequences of my taking a similar risk, gambling with a large part of my funds, would have been much more serious. It was an important lesson to learn at a young age, when the consequences were relatively small. Similarly, if kids learn in elementary school that hitting another student, for example, results in missing recess, in high school they may not have to learn that lesson by being suspended or expelled. Or if they learn in the early years that not studying for tests results in lower performance, they will avoid experiencing the results of poor academic grades in the years in which academic performance has high-stakes consequences. Of course, it's always a judgment call as to how to intervene in any particular situation for a particular child, but in general it seems to me to be true that people (children, adults, all of us) learn from the results of their actions, and while taking care to be kind, caring, and gentle, we adults need to allow that to happen for kids.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Does More Paperwork Really Improve Student Achievement?
At last Wednesday's school committee meeting, the members discussed a set of model resolutions to be considered at the upcoming MASC conference (the Massachusetts Association of School Committees). One of the resolutions, with which I heartily agree, called for the formation of a special commission to review the government-mandated reports and data required of school districts in order to determine the extent to which the reports and data benefit student achievement or simply take time that could otherwise be used in the service of teaching and learning.
In the same set of resolutions, it was noted, with respect to the new educator evaluation system, that "the formal regulations, guidelines, rubrics and resource advisory materials produced by DESE [the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education] to ensure compliance by educators and policymakers as they implement [the new evaluation system] are comprised of more than 375 pages of instructions and over 110,000 words." I believe that at this point I have read all these pages (!!!), and I personally find the complexity of the new educator evaluation system, and the paperwork required by it, rather amazing. There are four overall standards of performance for teachers. Under the standards are 16 "indicators," and under the "indicators" are 33 "elements," with four defined levels for each "element." To make a determination of performance under each element, there are 3 categories of evidence to be used and an evidence tracking form to be completed. Overall, there is a defined 5 step evaluation cycle, 4 different types of plans, and 10 different forms to be completed and used throughout the process. The whole thing is amazingly complex and requires a large amount of paperwork. In general, in the corporate world, adequately supervising more than 10 direct reports is considered very difficult to do, but in schools principals generally are responsible for supervising 50 or more people, a task that is challenging enough already without adding more paperwork. There is nothing in the new law and regulations to provide schools with more resources to do this work, other than a provision for providing a "subsidy" to consultants who can be hired by school systems to "train" everyone in how to implement the system. (Perhaps in another post I'll discuss the topic of government regulations that are so complex that schools don't have the resources to figure out how to comply with them and thus have to hire consultants to develop forms and programs -- there are better uses for district funds, such as purchasing materials and supplies for classroom use, or funding useful professional development for teachers.) In any event, I believe that the level of paperwork required by the new evaluation system will actually make it more difficult to provide good supervision by taking time away from actually meeting with, observing, and working with teachers and students.
Overall, my prediction is that the new system will focus everyone on the onerous task of just completing the paperwork, and that it will decrease the time that can actually be spent in observing instruction and discussing it with teachers. It makes me wonder -- are there really people who believe that requiring more paperwork of school administrators is going to contribute positively to student achievement, and how did they come to that conclusion?
In the same set of resolutions, it was noted, with respect to the new educator evaluation system, that "the formal regulations, guidelines, rubrics and resource advisory materials produced by DESE [the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education] to ensure compliance by educators and policymakers as they implement [the new evaluation system] are comprised of more than 375 pages of instructions and over 110,000 words." I believe that at this point I have read all these pages (!!!), and I personally find the complexity of the new educator evaluation system, and the paperwork required by it, rather amazing. There are four overall standards of performance for teachers. Under the standards are 16 "indicators," and under the "indicators" are 33 "elements," with four defined levels for each "element." To make a determination of performance under each element, there are 3 categories of evidence to be used and an evidence tracking form to be completed. Overall, there is a defined 5 step evaluation cycle, 4 different types of plans, and 10 different forms to be completed and used throughout the process. The whole thing is amazingly complex and requires a large amount of paperwork. In general, in the corporate world, adequately supervising more than 10 direct reports is considered very difficult to do, but in schools principals generally are responsible for supervising 50 or more people, a task that is challenging enough already without adding more paperwork. There is nothing in the new law and regulations to provide schools with more resources to do this work, other than a provision for providing a "subsidy" to consultants who can be hired by school systems to "train" everyone in how to implement the system. (Perhaps in another post I'll discuss the topic of government regulations that are so complex that schools don't have the resources to figure out how to comply with them and thus have to hire consultants to develop forms and programs -- there are better uses for district funds, such as purchasing materials and supplies for classroom use, or funding useful professional development for teachers.) In any event, I believe that the level of paperwork required by the new evaluation system will actually make it more difficult to provide good supervision by taking time away from actually meeting with, observing, and working with teachers and students.
Overall, my prediction is that the new system will focus everyone on the onerous task of just completing the paperwork, and that it will decrease the time that can actually be spent in observing instruction and discussing it with teachers. It makes me wonder -- are there really people who believe that requiring more paperwork of school administrators is going to contribute positively to student achievement, and how did they come to that conclusion?
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Where Do They Learn It? Some Thoughts on Bullying
This past Monday (Oct. 1st), there was an interesting item in The Boston Globe entitled "Bullying Common On Children's Shows," regarding a recent study of children's television programs by Indiana University researchers. The study, which was published in the September Journal of Communications, reviewed three episodes of each of 50 popular children's television shows and found that some form of aggression was portrayed on 92% of the programs, "most commonly verbal types such as insulting and teasing, but also nonverbal types such as eye rolling, finger pointing, and ignoring." The researchers also noted that in most cases the aggressors were portrayed as popular or attractive and were not either punished or rewarded as a result of the behavior. In other words, it seems that teasing and bullying are frequently shown as normal, expected behavior. This morning, I read an unrelated article -- a synopsis in the Marshall Memo of a recent article in the Harvard Business Review about the power of social norms to change behavior -- that seems very relevant to this problem. The HBR article described research demonstrating that simply communicating social norms was amazingly effective in getting people to change their behavior. For example, in hotel bathrooms a message saying that the majority of people do re-use their towels resulted in a large increase in the number of people re-using their towels, and a message in Britain to citizens in a particular town stating that "over 93% of citizens living in your town pay their tax on time" resulted in an increase in timely collections from 57 to 86 percent. It seems to me that our children are hearing the message from the media that teasing and bullying is normal, expected behavior and/or that most people speak to others in this manner.
This is a difficult message to counter, as much as parents and teachers work at it, but we clearly need to keep trying. (Perhaps we also need to push for changes in what is portrayed to children, but that's another topic.) After reading the HBR article, one thing that occurred to me was to advocate for continual, explicit teaching about consideration for others. For example, I remember that as a child I was continually hearing messages from my parents regarding consideration for others -- "Don't leave that in the way; someone might trip over it," "Don't take the last brownie; someone else may want it," and the like. I wonder sometimes if those messages are getting lost in the high-speed pace of life these days. As I drive into a supermarket parking lot, for example, and find shopping carts left all over rather than being returned, or cars parked in places that make it difficult for others to park, I wonder if children are instead getting the message that thinking only of one's own convenience and not of others is OK. I think I am going to experiment at school with messages that indicate social norms ("most people avoid saying mean things to others," and the like -- whatever I can find based on facts), and I would encourage all of us to do more explicit teaching of consideration for others, like returning that shopping cart while saying to a child something like, "We need to return this so it's not in other people's way and so others can use it."
It will take all of us to change what we, as a society, are teaching our children, and I do believe that this continual explicit teaching, by our modeling and our language, will be more effective than any anti-bullying assembly or program can possibly be. I also think we should push for changes in programming for children to more truly portray how most people really do treat each other so that children learn that the norm is politeness and civility, not teasing and bullying.
This is a difficult message to counter, as much as parents and teachers work at it, but we clearly need to keep trying. (Perhaps we also need to push for changes in what is portrayed to children, but that's another topic.) After reading the HBR article, one thing that occurred to me was to advocate for continual, explicit teaching about consideration for others. For example, I remember that as a child I was continually hearing messages from my parents regarding consideration for others -- "Don't leave that in the way; someone might trip over it," "Don't take the last brownie; someone else may want it," and the like. I wonder sometimes if those messages are getting lost in the high-speed pace of life these days. As I drive into a supermarket parking lot, for example, and find shopping carts left all over rather than being returned, or cars parked in places that make it difficult for others to park, I wonder if children are instead getting the message that thinking only of one's own convenience and not of others is OK. I think I am going to experiment at school with messages that indicate social norms ("most people avoid saying mean things to others," and the like -- whatever I can find based on facts), and I would encourage all of us to do more explicit teaching of consideration for others, like returning that shopping cart while saying to a child something like, "We need to return this so it's not in other people's way and so others can use it."
It will take all of us to change what we, as a society, are teaching our children, and I do believe that this continual explicit teaching, by our modeling and our language, will be more effective than any anti-bullying assembly or program can possibly be. I also think we should push for changes in programming for children to more truly portray how most people really do treat each other so that children learn that the norm is politeness and civility, not teasing and bullying.
Friday, September 21, 2012
What Really Counts
I was talking with a teacher this morning about her goals for the various children in her class. She was able to talk about each child, and had a good idea already, even though it's early in the year, about what she wanted to emphasize in working with each of them. Now you may be thinking, "OK, so probably one child has more difficulty with place value in math and another child has more difficulty with spelling multisyllable words. . ." and the like. Yes, it's certainly true that this teacher knows all that, but the goals she was talking about this morning for the children in her care are more individual and more important than that. With one child, she will be working on helping him to become more organized, to slow down and plan his work, to put more thought into it. With another child, she will be working on helping her to become more assertive and to analyze and express her opinions more effectively. With yet another child, she will be working on helping him to see others' points of view and to be more kind to his classmates and a better friend. . .
I'm sure that each of us has had some wonderful teachers in our past whom we remember to this day. The teachers who made a difference in my life were the ones who knew me as a person, who showed me a new way to look at what I could possibly accomplish, and helped to open my horizons. I remember my high school German teacher who took the time to work with me on my senior piano recital piece and sparked my confidence and love of music, and my 7th grade teacher who opened up the world of poetry to me and helped me to think that I could write. . . I could go on, and I think that every one of us has stories like that and every parent has stories about a teacher who made that kind of difference in the life of his/her child.
I have recently finished reading an interesting book about children and character (How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character, by Paul Tough) that reveals and emphasizes the importance of character, including qualities like perseverance, curiosity, conscientiousness, optimism, and self-control, for achievement and success in life. These qualities are better predictors of both academic success and success in life, and Tough demonstrates how schools that work with children to develop these qualities help to give them the foundation for success that they need. Today I also read a blog post discussing the other side of the same concept -- how blind faith in numbers leads to obsession with winning and failure to realize what's really important ("How Our Love For Numbers Warps School Reform", from "The Answer Sheet" in the Washington Post). As noted in this entry:
I'm sure that each of us has had some wonderful teachers in our past whom we remember to this day. The teachers who made a difference in my life were the ones who knew me as a person, who showed me a new way to look at what I could possibly accomplish, and helped to open my horizons. I remember my high school German teacher who took the time to work with me on my senior piano recital piece and sparked my confidence and love of music, and my 7th grade teacher who opened up the world of poetry to me and helped me to think that I could write. . . I could go on, and I think that every one of us has stories like that and every parent has stories about a teacher who made that kind of difference in the life of his/her child.
I have recently finished reading an interesting book about children and character (How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character, by Paul Tough) that reveals and emphasizes the importance of character, including qualities like perseverance, curiosity, conscientiousness, optimism, and self-control, for achievement and success in life. These qualities are better predictors of both academic success and success in life, and Tough demonstrates how schools that work with children to develop these qualities help to give them the foundation for success that they need. Today I also read a blog post discussing the other side of the same concept -- how blind faith in numbers leads to obsession with winning and failure to realize what's really important ("How Our Love For Numbers Warps School Reform", from "The Answer Sheet" in the Washington Post). As noted in this entry:
In education, the question “How do we assess (kids, teachers, schools)?” has morphed over the years into “How do we measure…?” We’ve forgotten that assessment doesn’t require measurement — and, moreover, that the most valuable forms of assessment are often qualitative (say, a narrative account of a child’s progress by an observant teacher who knows the child well) rather than quantitative (a standardized test score). Yet the former may well be brushed aside in favor of the latter — by people who don’t even bother to ask what was on the test. It’s a number, so we sit up and pay attention. Over time, the more data we accumulate, the less we really know.As you may have noticed, the school MCAS scores were released this week. We did well, which I'm happy about, but I am much more happy about the fact that our teachers work with children in the way I described in the first paragraph of this post, and I hope we don't ever lose sight of that.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Some Thoughts On Chicago
I read an excellent post yesterday, written by a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools, explaining why Chicago teachers are striking, and the Los Angeles Times had a very thoughtful editorial on the same subject, discussing the problems with using tests for purposes for which they were not designed, and also explaining some of the issues relating to the seniority provisions. Take a look at the LA Times editorial if you have a chance -- it's very thoughtful and informative.
I do think that many of today's "education reformers" do not understand schools and teachers very well, and I thought I'd also offer my own two cents on a couple of the most important misunderstandings.
First of all, most of the proposed "reforms" only make sense if you assume that most teachers are only doing the bare minimum and if they were just motivated using things like pay and punishments tied to student test scores they would all work harder and do a better job. In my experience, and as noted in the LA Times editorial, this is an assumption for which there is no evidence. After college, I went to Harvard Law School and then worked as a corporate lawyer in a big firm in Boston for 10 years, and when I became a teacher I found that it required just as many hours, if not more. In my time in education, I have met very few teachers who were not also working incredibly hard, spending long hours before school, after school, at home, and on weekends, and the teachers that I know and have known are passionate and caring about their work and doing the best they can to make it work for their students. Attaching rewards and punishments will not help people work any harder if they are already working as hard as they can -- it will simply demoralize them and make it more difficult for them to do a good job.
Second, the whole issue of provisions such as seniority in teacher contracts is a difficult and complicated issue -- much more complicated than it may seem, and it's clear that there is much misunderstanding about it. For example, as the Times editorial also noted, one of the problems for schools is that there is huge pressure to reduce costs. In the absence of contractual protections for teachers, such as seniority, there would be irresistible pressure to keep only newer, less experienced, and cheaper teachers, which would eventually lead to teaching becoming not a profession but a form of public service in which young people would engage for two or three years after college, to the detriment of our children's education. Most well-done teacher contracts, such as ours, are not entirely based on seniority, but have a number of factors, including evaluations, that are taken into consideration with respect to layoffs and the like, in order to balance these interests.
Finally, I want to say again that the characterization of the American educational system as underperforming is incorrect, as has been demonstrated time and time again. The truth is that there are huge differences between and among schools and districts in this country -- U.S. schools with low poverty rates score at or above the level of the top countries in the world, but U.S. schools with high poverty rates are performing at the level of Third World countries. Many of the current "reforms" have been shown to be not helpful and some are actually harming our children's education. Those of us in schools are still working as hard as we can to make it work for the kids, but are becoming increasingly demoralized by the broad brush attacks on schools and teachers. I hope that the Chicago teachers' action will help to foster more conversation about the issues and that we will be able to make appropriate changes before it's too late.
I do think that many of today's "education reformers" do not understand schools and teachers very well, and I thought I'd also offer my own two cents on a couple of the most important misunderstandings.
First of all, most of the proposed "reforms" only make sense if you assume that most teachers are only doing the bare minimum and if they were just motivated using things like pay and punishments tied to student test scores they would all work harder and do a better job. In my experience, and as noted in the LA Times editorial, this is an assumption for which there is no evidence. After college, I went to Harvard Law School and then worked as a corporate lawyer in a big firm in Boston for 10 years, and when I became a teacher I found that it required just as many hours, if not more. In my time in education, I have met very few teachers who were not also working incredibly hard, spending long hours before school, after school, at home, and on weekends, and the teachers that I know and have known are passionate and caring about their work and doing the best they can to make it work for their students. Attaching rewards and punishments will not help people work any harder if they are already working as hard as they can -- it will simply demoralize them and make it more difficult for them to do a good job.
Second, the whole issue of provisions such as seniority in teacher contracts is a difficult and complicated issue -- much more complicated than it may seem, and it's clear that there is much misunderstanding about it. For example, as the Times editorial also noted, one of the problems for schools is that there is huge pressure to reduce costs. In the absence of contractual protections for teachers, such as seniority, there would be irresistible pressure to keep only newer, less experienced, and cheaper teachers, which would eventually lead to teaching becoming not a profession but a form of public service in which young people would engage for two or three years after college, to the detriment of our children's education. Most well-done teacher contracts, such as ours, are not entirely based on seniority, but have a number of factors, including evaluations, that are taken into consideration with respect to layoffs and the like, in order to balance these interests.
Finally, I want to say again that the characterization of the American educational system as underperforming is incorrect, as has been demonstrated time and time again. The truth is that there are huge differences between and among schools and districts in this country -- U.S. schools with low poverty rates score at or above the level of the top countries in the world, but U.S. schools with high poverty rates are performing at the level of Third World countries. Many of the current "reforms" have been shown to be not helpful and some are actually harming our children's education. Those of us in schools are still working as hard as we can to make it work for the kids, but are becoming increasingly demoralized by the broad brush attacks on schools and teachers. I hope that the Chicago teachers' action will help to foster more conversation about the issues and that we will be able to make appropriate changes before it's too late.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Education is Not a Zero-Sum Game!
Education is not -- or should not be -- a zero-sum game. In a zero-sum game, anything gained by one participant has to be lost by another participant or participants and the net change is zero. For example, in an election, when two people are running for the same office, the total number of votes cannot exceed the number of voters so an increase in votes for one candidate results in a decrease in votes for the other candidate. There are many situations in life where that is the case. If you and I both interview for the same job and you get the job, I do not. If we both bid on the same house and your bid is accepted, mine will not be. Competitive situations are often zero-sum games.
There is no need, however, for education to be a zero-sum game. If I study hard and learn to speak fluent French, there is nothing that prevents you -- or a hundred other people -- from learning to speak French equally fluently. If the students in our school all achieve at a very high level on the state math exam, there is no reason why the students in any or all other schools cannot achieve at the same level. In fact, we would like them to! Unfortunately, though, our current state testing system, the MCAS, which was originally intended to be a "criterion-referenced assessment" (an assessment which measures achievement against fixed standards with no limits on how many students can meet those standards), is being changed by the use of student growth percentiles into a zero-sum game. Student growth percentiles (SGPs) compare a student's change in score from one year to the next to the changes in score of his/her "academic peers," so, for example, if a student receives an SGP of 65 that means that his score grew more than 65% of his "academic peers." If his peers do better, he receives a lower SGP -- a zero-sum game. The state, in its information on this topic, indicates that students with SGPs of less than 40 are considered to have "low growth," students with SGPs between 40 and 60 "moderate growth," and students with SGPs of 60 or better "high growth." The problem, of course, is that no matter how high the actual achievement of Massachusetts students, there will always be 40% of students who will be labeled "low growth," and their schools and teachers will be penalized.
The Massachusetts DESE has taken this even further in its recommendations for district assessments, by suggesting that districts do pre- and post-assessments, calculate the difference in scores for each student, order the results from highest to lowest, and divide the results into thirds, with the bottom third being labeled "low growth." Once again, no matter how well a district's students do -- and they could all be achieving at high levels -- one-third of them will be labeled as achieving "low growth." It's also important to note that if a student in that lowest third moves up into the middle third, that will automatically push a student in the middle third down to the lowest third -- a zero-sum game.
This type of system has very real negative consequences for schools and for our children's education. Particularly in Massachusetts, which had overall math and science achievement at the level of the top countries in the world on the 2009 international math and science assessment, and was the highest state in the nation on the past two national educational assessments, why are we deciding to automatically label 40% of our students (on the MCAS) or one-third of our students (on district assessments) as low achievers? I cannot think of any purpose for labeling students this way other than to make sure that some students and schools appear to be failing even though their absolute level of achievement is high. Is this really what we want to do to our children or our schools? Couldn't we just use set standards, celebrate the students and schools that meet those standards, and help those that don't?
There is no need, however, for education to be a zero-sum game. If I study hard and learn to speak fluent French, there is nothing that prevents you -- or a hundred other people -- from learning to speak French equally fluently. If the students in our school all achieve at a very high level on the state math exam, there is no reason why the students in any or all other schools cannot achieve at the same level. In fact, we would like them to! Unfortunately, though, our current state testing system, the MCAS, which was originally intended to be a "criterion-referenced assessment" (an assessment which measures achievement against fixed standards with no limits on how many students can meet those standards), is being changed by the use of student growth percentiles into a zero-sum game. Student growth percentiles (SGPs) compare a student's change in score from one year to the next to the changes in score of his/her "academic peers," so, for example, if a student receives an SGP of 65 that means that his score grew more than 65% of his "academic peers." If his peers do better, he receives a lower SGP -- a zero-sum game. The state, in its information on this topic, indicates that students with SGPs of less than 40 are considered to have "low growth," students with SGPs between 40 and 60 "moderate growth," and students with SGPs of 60 or better "high growth." The problem, of course, is that no matter how high the actual achievement of Massachusetts students, there will always be 40% of students who will be labeled "low growth," and their schools and teachers will be penalized.
The Massachusetts DESE has taken this even further in its recommendations for district assessments, by suggesting that districts do pre- and post-assessments, calculate the difference in scores for each student, order the results from highest to lowest, and divide the results into thirds, with the bottom third being labeled "low growth." Once again, no matter how well a district's students do -- and they could all be achieving at high levels -- one-third of them will be labeled as achieving "low growth." It's also important to note that if a student in that lowest third moves up into the middle third, that will automatically push a student in the middle third down to the lowest third -- a zero-sum game.
This type of system has very real negative consequences for schools and for our children's education. Particularly in Massachusetts, which had overall math and science achievement at the level of the top countries in the world on the 2009 international math and science assessment, and was the highest state in the nation on the past two national educational assessments, why are we deciding to automatically label 40% of our students (on the MCAS) or one-third of our students (on district assessments) as low achievers? I cannot think of any purpose for labeling students this way other than to make sure that some students and schools appear to be failing even though their absolute level of achievement is high. Is this really what we want to do to our children or our schools? Couldn't we just use set standards, celebrate the students and schools that meet those standards, and help those that don't?
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Evaluating Public Education: A Case of the Emperor's New Clothes
Remember the story of the Emperor's new clothes? The story put out to the public was that the Emperor was wearing wonderful suit of new clothes, glorious to behold. Actually, the Emperor was naked, but only one child was brave enough or confident enough in his perceptions to say it.
Unfortunately, most of the publicity around "education reform" these days is very similar. Recently I was reading one of the latest publications from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the "DESE") regarding how to determine whether a teacher's students have achieved "high growth," "moderate growth," or "low growth," and was appalled at what I learned about the DESE's approach to this measurement.
First of all, with respect to reading and math, which are subjects with MCAS tests, the DESE produces a number known as the "Student Growth Percentile" (or "SGP"), which purports to measure a child's growth as compared to his/her peers. There are two problems with this number, both of them significant. First of all, although the DESE believes that its formula takes into consideration students with disabilities or students who are just learning English, in fact when you look at correlations those students generally have significantly lower SGP numbers than students without disabilities and students whose first language is English. Second, in my analysis of the SGPs for the past two years, I have found correlations between lower SGPs and other kinds of student difficulties, such as a death in the student's family, parents divorcing, behavioral or social issues, and other kinds of problems, and have not found any correlations by teacher. Aside from these two problems, though, there is a larger problem -- the DESE defines low growth as anything less than 40*, but since these are percentiles that means that no matter how well Massachusetts students are doing (and remember that Massachusetts students scored 1st in the nation on the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress and 1st in the world on the most recent international math and science assessment), 40% of Massachusetts students will be deemed low achieving. Let me say that again -- no matter how well Massachusetts students are doing or how much they have achieved, the bottom 40% will always be labeled as "low growth."
Second, the DESE's advice to districts on other subjects not measured by MCAS is that districts should develop tests, measure growth on those tests from the beginning to the end of the year, and divide the growth scores into thirds, the lowest third being defined as low growth, the middle third as moderate, and the top third as high growth*. This means that no matter how well students in a particular district such as Southborough are doing, one-third of students will be deemed low achieving. On these measures, high achievers would also be penalized, as the assessments will not measure the extra challenges provided for high achievers and thus they will show little "growth." (It also means that in a struggling district, no matter how much difficulty students are having, one-third will be deemed high achieving.)
As far as I know, only in Lake Wobegon can all students be above average! I truly do not understand why, if the idea is to "leave no child behind," we are using percentiles and other comparative measurements rather than setting standards and working toward having as many students as possible meet those standards. Education should not be a zero-sum game; there is no limit on how many students can meet the standards. The Emperor truly has no clothes, and I am hoping that people will realize that soon, before we destroy an excellent public education system.**
________________________________
*Information from Part VII of the Massachusetts Model Educator Evaluation System, released this August and found on the DESE website.
**Another resource you may be interested in is this blog post entitled "Three Ed Reforms Parents Should Worry About Most," on the Washington Post website.
Unfortunately, most of the publicity around "education reform" these days is very similar. Recently I was reading one of the latest publications from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the "DESE") regarding how to determine whether a teacher's students have achieved "high growth," "moderate growth," or "low growth," and was appalled at what I learned about the DESE's approach to this measurement.
First of all, with respect to reading and math, which are subjects with MCAS tests, the DESE produces a number known as the "Student Growth Percentile" (or "SGP"), which purports to measure a child's growth as compared to his/her peers. There are two problems with this number, both of them significant. First of all, although the DESE believes that its formula takes into consideration students with disabilities or students who are just learning English, in fact when you look at correlations those students generally have significantly lower SGP numbers than students without disabilities and students whose first language is English. Second, in my analysis of the SGPs for the past two years, I have found correlations between lower SGPs and other kinds of student difficulties, such as a death in the student's family, parents divorcing, behavioral or social issues, and other kinds of problems, and have not found any correlations by teacher. Aside from these two problems, though, there is a larger problem -- the DESE defines low growth as anything less than 40*, but since these are percentiles that means that no matter how well Massachusetts students are doing (and remember that Massachusetts students scored 1st in the nation on the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress and 1st in the world on the most recent international math and science assessment), 40% of Massachusetts students will be deemed low achieving. Let me say that again -- no matter how well Massachusetts students are doing or how much they have achieved, the bottom 40% will always be labeled as "low growth."
Second, the DESE's advice to districts on other subjects not measured by MCAS is that districts should develop tests, measure growth on those tests from the beginning to the end of the year, and divide the growth scores into thirds, the lowest third being defined as low growth, the middle third as moderate, and the top third as high growth*. This means that no matter how well students in a particular district such as Southborough are doing, one-third of students will be deemed low achieving. On these measures, high achievers would also be penalized, as the assessments will not measure the extra challenges provided for high achievers and thus they will show little "growth." (It also means that in a struggling district, no matter how much difficulty students are having, one-third will be deemed high achieving.)
As far as I know, only in Lake Wobegon can all students be above average! I truly do not understand why, if the idea is to "leave no child behind," we are using percentiles and other comparative measurements rather than setting standards and working toward having as many students as possible meet those standards. Education should not be a zero-sum game; there is no limit on how many students can meet the standards. The Emperor truly has no clothes, and I am hoping that people will realize that soon, before we destroy an excellent public education system.**
________________________________
*Information from Part VII of the Massachusetts Model Educator Evaluation System, released this August and found on the DESE website.
**Another resource you may be interested in is this blog post entitled "Three Ed Reforms Parents Should Worry About Most," on the Washington Post website.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Back to School!
It's my favorite time of the year again -- fall! And with fall comes back-to-school time, which I've always thought of as the real beginning of the year and the best time for new year's resolutions. (That was true even when I wasn't an educator, but a lawyer working in the world of big business -- fall is always the new year for me.) In any event, one of my resolutions this year is to do a better job of posting on this blog, as one way of communicating and engendering some dialogue about education.
Interestingly, most people don't seem to differ much about education on the local level, either about the purposes of education or the type of school they want for their children. My own belief is that there are two essential pillars of a good school -- a warm, welcoming, safe climate that encourages growth for both children and adults, and stimulating, challenging academics -- and from what I hear it seems that many people agree. As we head into the new year, those two aspects are again our focus at Neary, and we have initiatives underway in both areas. We will be spending our opening professional day looking at the new Common Core curriculum and ways of providing students with the academic challenge they need, and we will also be working on a new section for our progress reports and report card that will help us work with parents on the habits of mind and work habits and skills that students need to be successful. Next Wednesday, as the students return, we have plans for both -- assemblies and activities that are welcoming, fun, and engaging, and beginning work that is exciting and challenging. I'm looking forward to the year!
In my recent reading, I found an interesting blog post and a useful article that I would recommend. The blog post was written by Carol Burris, a New York principal, and appeared in one of the Washington Post blogs, "The Answer Sheet," last Thursday. It's entitled "Three Ed Reforms Parents Should Worry About Most," and is an excellent analysis of some of the more damaging trends in education legislation and regulation with which parents should be concerned. It's well worth reading!
The article is more of a practical set of tips for parents for helping their children have a great year. It appeared in the most recent issue of Parents magazine and is entitled "Classroom Confidential." The article provides tips and thoughts on many topics, from talking with teachers, to helping students with homework, to helping children fit in. I think it's crucially important for kids' success to have a good partnership between parents and teachers and this article provides some ideas on how to do that successfully. (I would add -- please do contact us if you're concerned about something. We can usually work together to resolve the problem.) We have this issue of the magazine in our office if you'd like to look through it. (Our outer office also has a library of books relating to child development, parenting, and education -- you can browse through them and borrow one if you'd like. Just sign it out with one of the secretaries.)
Here's to a great school year 2012-13 for all our students and families!
Interestingly, most people don't seem to differ much about education on the local level, either about the purposes of education or the type of school they want for their children. My own belief is that there are two essential pillars of a good school -- a warm, welcoming, safe climate that encourages growth for both children and adults, and stimulating, challenging academics -- and from what I hear it seems that many people agree. As we head into the new year, those two aspects are again our focus at Neary, and we have initiatives underway in both areas. We will be spending our opening professional day looking at the new Common Core curriculum and ways of providing students with the academic challenge they need, and we will also be working on a new section for our progress reports and report card that will help us work with parents on the habits of mind and work habits and skills that students need to be successful. Next Wednesday, as the students return, we have plans for both -- assemblies and activities that are welcoming, fun, and engaging, and beginning work that is exciting and challenging. I'm looking forward to the year!
In my recent reading, I found an interesting blog post and a useful article that I would recommend. The blog post was written by Carol Burris, a New York principal, and appeared in one of the Washington Post blogs, "The Answer Sheet," last Thursday. It's entitled "Three Ed Reforms Parents Should Worry About Most," and is an excellent analysis of some of the more damaging trends in education legislation and regulation with which parents should be concerned. It's well worth reading!
The article is more of a practical set of tips for parents for helping their children have a great year. It appeared in the most recent issue of Parents magazine and is entitled "Classroom Confidential." The article provides tips and thoughts on many topics, from talking with teachers, to helping students with homework, to helping children fit in. I think it's crucially important for kids' success to have a good partnership between parents and teachers and this article provides some ideas on how to do that successfully. (I would add -- please do contact us if you're concerned about something. We can usually work together to resolve the problem.) We have this issue of the magazine in our office if you'd like to look through it. (Our outer office also has a library of books relating to child development, parenting, and education -- you can browse through them and borrow one if you'd like. Just sign it out with one of the secretaries.)
Here's to a great school year 2012-13 for all our students and families!
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Standardized Testing Pressure and the Endangered Curriculum
Recently I have read much commentary in the news and on various blogs about a principal who was fired from her position in Dallas as a result of false grades on report cards. Apparently, according to the news stories, she was obsessed with making sure that her school scored high on the Texas state tests, so she eliminated music, art, science, and social studies in her school and focused only on test preparation, but she insisted that teachers put grades for music, art, science, and social studies on student report cards anyway. As a result, her school's test scores did indeed go up, and her school was lauded as an exemplary school for two years, until the problem was discovered. (This all came up in connection with the Washington, D.C. public schools hiring her as a principal -- see "The Answer Sheet," one of the blogs from The Washington Post, for more information.) What interests me about this situation is that of course what this Dallas principal did was clearly blatant cheating, but schools and districts all over the country are eliminating music and art, and reducing time spent on science and social studies, in order to greatly increase time on math and reading, in order to score higher on the tests. One way of scoring higher on the tests is to eliminate or reduce everything else but focus on preparation for the tests -- this shortchanges the kids, but makes the school look good. In our own state, many Massachusetts schools are doing exactly this -- not cheating, we hope, but certainly many schools are reducing or eliminating their art and music programs and reducing the time allocated to science and social studies, and greatly increasing the time spent on test preparation in order to achieve high MCAS scores. As a result, some of the schools that are being congratulated publicly for their excellent test scores may or may not be providing their students with the kind of well-rounded, thoughtful education needed in this day and age -- and, conversely, many schools that are providing their students with an excellent education are under pressure to change what they are doing in order to increase their MCAS scores.
In our district, we believe that student success is much more than achievement on the MCAS tests. As indicated by the Texas "example," the huge risk in NCLB and MCAS testing has always been the narrowing of the curriculum to test preparation and the elimination or reduction of non-tested subjects, with a consequent “dumbing down” of the curriculum in the better school districts. Southborough has been consistent in resisting that narrowing of the curriculum, in ways that we believe are crucially important (for example, maintaining our social studies curriculum and maintaining the discussion of government and current events within the social studies curriculum). Because of this, comparisons among schools based on MCAS results do not provide a complete picture of our results with our students.
Student Achievement:
So -- how should student achievement be defined? And how can we measure it in order to track our progress?
As defined in our district, student success is much more than high scores on the MCAS tests. Our district’s mission is “to maximize academic achievement, social responsibility and lifelong learning by attending to the intellectual and developmental needs of individual students in supportive classroom environments.”
Unfortunately, many important goals cannot be precisely measured. For example, our goals for our students, include, among other things (and in addition to competence in math and reading):
> Excellence in the 4 C’s of 21st century learning: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity;
> Understanding and knowledge of history and government (becoming thoughtful citizens of our democracy)
> Understanding and knowledge of scientific concepts
> Ability to investigate and learn on their own
> Appreciation of music and art, and skills enough in these areas to be able to enjoy them in their own lives
> Fluency in another language
How can we assess our success in achieving these goals? Indicators of success include the following (MCAS test results are only one indicator):
> District assessments, including both common end-of-course assessments, and teacher-made assessments
> Feedback from parents and students
> Private school acceptances & feedback from those schools (e.g., Trottier students’ acceptances at private high schools and continuing positive feedback from those schools and from parents about the students’ preparation)
> MCAS results
> High school graduation rate
> College acceptance rate, and colleges attended by our graduates
> SAT scores
> AP testing results
> Student success on national exams in different subjects (e.g., world languages)
Our students do, of course, need to pass the MCAS, and they all do. But our goals for them go way beyond that.
Current Data:
2011 MCAS scores:
> Southborough, K-8: Scores range from a high of 92% advanced & proficient in 8th
grade ELA to a low of 51% advanced & proficient in 8th grade science
> Algonquin Regional High School:
> 10th grade ELA: 96% advanced & proficient
> 10th grade math: 91% advanced & proficient
> 10th grade science: 91% advanced & proficient
Southborough’s scores put us mostly in the top 20% or 25% in the state, with last year’s 3rd grade scores in the top 3% and Algonquin’s scores in the top 10% or 15%. Since Massachusetts’ average scores on the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress, a.k.a. “The Nation’s Report Card”) reading and math testing are first in the nation, and Massachusetts’ most recent scores on the PISA (“Programme for International Student Assessment”) reading and TIMSS (“Trends in International Math and Science Study”) math and science testing are up with the top nations in the world, this means that the math and reading achievement of Southborough students is excellent.
Other Current Data:
The following are some other recent metrics that give an indication of the achievement of the students in our district.
Algonquin's AP Test scores (2009-10):
> 598 tests taken, in 22 different areas
> The average percentage of students scoring in the 3-5 range was 94.3%
> Algonquin’s percentage of students scoring in the 3-5 range was tied for 7thin the state
Algonquin's Average SAT scores (2009-10):
> Reading: 557 (39th of 292 districts)
> Writing: 563 (29th of 292 districts)
> Math: 580 (26th of 292 districts)
Algonquin's Graduation rate (2009-10):
> 98.1% (tied for 6th in the state)
Could we increase our MCAS scores without harming everything else?
This year, we have experienced a fair amount of pressure about trying to increase our scores on the MCAS testing; even though our scores are in the top 20-25% in the state, people have asked why we couldn't be in the top 10% or top 5% in the state. I believe that the answer is that we probably could be at that level, but not without injury to student achievement in other areas. If we narrowed our goals for our students and simply pursued a high ranking on one indicator (MCAS tests), we would probably do many things differently:
> As many Massachusetts schools have done, we would probably eliminate or greatly reduce subjects such as music and art;
> We might reduce the time allocated to social studies, since it is not tested, and eliminate the study of government and current events;
> We might eliminate many of the hands-on investigations in science and other experiential activities in other subjects and just focus on material that will be on the tests;
> As many other schools do, we would spend significantly more time on preparing for the tests;
> As some Massachusetts schools do, we might divide students into groups based on test scores as early as 4th grade and focus much time on extra test preparation for those who are doing less well rather than providing all students with rich learning opportunities.
As stated previously, one of the biggest detrimental results of NCLB and MCAS testing has been the narrowing of the curriculum to test preparation and the elimination or reduction of non-tested subjects, with a consequent dumbing down of the curriculum, other than in the better school districts that have succeeded in resisting the pressure. With more and more pressure for higher rankings on the MCAS, we could drop everything else that we think is important and pursue a higher ranking, but it would be to the detriment of our students (and could also result in lower SAT scores, and lower student performance on AP tests, both of which would be harmful to our students).
Currently, we provide our students with a full, well-rounded curriculum. They all pass the MCAS in high school, as they need to do, and in addition, are as well-prepared for college and for life as we can make them. In addition, while accomplishing all of this with our students, our MCAS scores are in the top 25% of scores in Massachusetts, which is first in the nation on the NAEP testing and up with the top countries in the world on the most recent TIMMS tests. Dumbing down our curriculum to pursue a higher rank on the MCAS math and reading tests does not seem worth it. We want more for our kids than that.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Children and Sports
The other day I was talking to a student who was heard by a teacher swearing during a recess game. I asked him why he was swearing, and he said, "Because I got out." I pointed out that getting out was part of the game, and asked again why he was so angry. As we talked, it became clear to me that he thought getting angry and swearing was an appropriate response to getting out and didn't understand why I thought there was a problem.
This incident made me think again about the modeling that our children are getting from the adult world. Obviously, as one of our teachers pointed out to his class, most of the professional athletes are behaving appropriately, congratulating the winners at the end of a game, respecting the referees and the other players, and generally showing good sportsmanship. Unfortunately, the media choose to highlight the bad examples, and the result is more and more children who think the only important thing is winning, who think it's appropriate to get angry when you don't win, and who don't respect the decisions of a game ref. (A physical education teacher I talked to told me that more and more kids are arguing and questioning her decisions during games.)
Earlier this week, I used the following quote (from Project Wisdom) as our quote of the day and asked students to think about it:
You may have heard the story of Armando Galarraga (GAL-a-RAGA), the Detroit Tigers’ pitcher who threw a perfect baseball game but was denied that recognition because of an umpire’s bad call. Armando showed strong character and good sportsmanship by accepting the call with respect and dignity. The umpire later acknowledged his mistake and apologized to the pitcher. We can all learn a lesson from the good sportsmanship of both men.
Listen to this:
When circumstances are unfair, you can show good character by continuing to do the best you can do.*
We don’t have to be athletes, though, to show good sportsmanship. Whether we’re competing in the science fair or playing a board game with our brother, we can play fairly and show respect for our competitors. And if we lose, even unfairly, we can still win by showing strong character and knowing that we’ve done our best.
If you can, it might be a great idea to talk with your children about good sportsmanship, about enjoying a game but not making it into more than a game, about losing gracefully and appreciating your competitors. Not only will this help our children grow into mature adults able to handle things well, but it will also improve our world.
This incident made me think again about the modeling that our children are getting from the adult world. Obviously, as one of our teachers pointed out to his class, most of the professional athletes are behaving appropriately, congratulating the winners at the end of a game, respecting the referees and the other players, and generally showing good sportsmanship. Unfortunately, the media choose to highlight the bad examples, and the result is more and more children who think the only important thing is winning, who think it's appropriate to get angry when you don't win, and who don't respect the decisions of a game ref. (A physical education teacher I talked to told me that more and more kids are arguing and questioning her decisions during games.)
Earlier this week, I used the following quote (from Project Wisdom) as our quote of the day and asked students to think about it:
You may have heard the story of Armando Galarraga (GAL-a-RAGA), the Detroit Tigers’ pitcher who threw a perfect baseball game but was denied that recognition because of an umpire’s bad call. Armando showed strong character and good sportsmanship by accepting the call with respect and dignity. The umpire later acknowledged his mistake and apologized to the pitcher. We can all learn a lesson from the good sportsmanship of both men.
Listen to this:
When circumstances are unfair, you can show good character by continuing to do the best you can do.*
We don’t have to be athletes, though, to show good sportsmanship. Whether we’re competing in the science fair or playing a board game with our brother, we can play fairly and show respect for our competitors. And if we lose, even unfairly, we can still win by showing strong character and knowing that we’ve done our best.
If you can, it might be a great idea to talk with your children about good sportsmanship, about enjoying a game but not making it into more than a game, about losing gracefully and appreciating your competitors. Not only will this help our children grow into mature adults able to handle things well, but it will also improve our world.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Deep and Rich Learning
One of the things I always notice when observing excellent teaching (something I fortunately have lots of opportunities to do) is the skillful interweaving of multiple strands of learning. This creates a rich and varied learning experience that engages students and allows for success and challenge at all levels. Recent examples of this kind of learning experience in the context of a major project include the 4th grade Invention Convention and the 5th grade Colonial Day projects.
In 4th grade, a student working on a project for the Invention Convention first learned about simple machines and participated in locating the simple machines in the school and making a video describing their use. The student then learned about innovation and participated in it by creating an invention which incorporated a simple machine and met an identified need. Students also documented their inventions, and developed business cards, brochures, and other marketing materials. This is a project with obvious real-world connections that incorporates science and technology concepts, literacy work, and business and economics, and is certainly one the students won't soon forget!
In 5th grade, the Colonial Day projects incorporate historical learning, reading, writing, and research skills, artwork, and critical thinking. I was particularly impressed by the "flip books" describing particular historical characters because the thinking and analysis went way beyond the factual. Each one was different and showed good critical thinking on the part of the student. Art and music were also incorporated into the experience, and on the day itself students were immersed in Colonial times, engaging in hand sewing, tinsmithing, butter-making, and a variety of Colonial games. Again, a rich learning experience, and one that students won't forget!
During the course of working on these projects, students also learn planning and time management skills, as well as the patience and persistence to pursue a long-term goal, all of which are important life skills. Now, of course, although I intended to write a simple post describing my excitement about these projects, I just have to ask -- how can any standardized test measure these things or measure the skill of a teacher who makes a difference for a child by helping him/her to develop these life skills or discover a passion or a new motivation? Children learn many different things from these projects -- for one, it may be finding a new confidence in her artistic skills; for another, it could be discovering his passion for history; for yet another child, it could be learning how to plan and complete a large project and feeling the pride of accomplishing that.
The best and most accomplished teachers consistently weave multiple strands of learning into their teaching -- learning about content, learning skills, learning attitudes, learning confidence, persistence and competence. This is learning that no child should miss. I am delighted to see this happening throughout our school, and hope we can continue to provide and value these rich learning experiences for our students.
In 4th grade, a student working on a project for the Invention Convention first learned about simple machines and participated in locating the simple machines in the school and making a video describing their use. The student then learned about innovation and participated in it by creating an invention which incorporated a simple machine and met an identified need. Students also documented their inventions, and developed business cards, brochures, and other marketing materials. This is a project with obvious real-world connections that incorporates science and technology concepts, literacy work, and business and economics, and is certainly one the students won't soon forget!
In 5th grade, the Colonial Day projects incorporate historical learning, reading, writing, and research skills, artwork, and critical thinking. I was particularly impressed by the "flip books" describing particular historical characters because the thinking and analysis went way beyond the factual. Each one was different and showed good critical thinking on the part of the student. Art and music were also incorporated into the experience, and on the day itself students were immersed in Colonial times, engaging in hand sewing, tinsmithing, butter-making, and a variety of Colonial games. Again, a rich learning experience, and one that students won't forget!
During the course of working on these projects, students also learn planning and time management skills, as well as the patience and persistence to pursue a long-term goal, all of which are important life skills. Now, of course, although I intended to write a simple post describing my excitement about these projects, I just have to ask -- how can any standardized test measure these things or measure the skill of a teacher who makes a difference for a child by helping him/her to develop these life skills or discover a passion or a new motivation? Children learn many different things from these projects -- for one, it may be finding a new confidence in her artistic skills; for another, it could be discovering his passion for history; for yet another child, it could be learning how to plan and complete a large project and feeling the pride of accomplishing that.
The best and most accomplished teachers consistently weave multiple strands of learning into their teaching -- learning about content, learning skills, learning attitudes, learning confidence, persistence and competence. This is learning that no child should miss. I am delighted to see this happening throughout our school, and hope we can continue to provide and value these rich learning experiences for our students.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Critical Thinking & Analysis -- An Essential 21st Century Skill
One of the real joys of my job is the opportunity to observe exciting teaching and learning; this past Friday I was fortunate to observe two wonderful social studies lessons, both of which pushed 5th graders into greater critical thinking and analysis. Unless you are lucky enough to be in today's classrooms, you probably are not aware of the extent to which teaching and learning has changed. Students are no longer simply memorizing and regurgitating names, dates, and conclusions; rather, they are thinking hard about historical situations, analyzing the different interests of the parties involved, and working toward their own analysis and understanding using primary sources from the time. This kind of analysis is frequently mentioned as a 21st century skill, and I completely agree that all of our students need to develop this ability and to become excellent critical thinkers. Seeing what's happening in our classrooms is wonderful; students are indeed being taught these skills, and they are responding with engagement and learning.
Sometimes, though, I am puzzled by what appears to be a lack of critical thinking in some of the media reporting today about educational issues, and it seems to me that everyone could use the lessons I saw last Friday in the two 5th grade classrooms. Recently, for example, newspapers reported the results from the international PISA testing, pointing out that the overall U.S. results were in the middle of the group, and using this to again say that our schools are failing. Interestingly, though, this year's PISA results were reported somewhat differently, in that the U.S. data was provided disaggregated by schools at different poverty levels. When you look at the disaggregated data and take the U.S. schools with a poverty level of 10% or less those schools outscored every other nation except Shanghai. The newspaper articles I saw did not mention this, though -- they were fine with simply reporting what they saw as yet another failure of U.S. schools, and didn't think it important to point out that our schools in affluent areas outscore the world, while our schools in poverty-stricken areas come in last. Drawing on what they learned last Friday about propaganda, and about presenting information to achieve a particular purpose, I think our 5th graders might now ask what the intent or purpose is of those who wish to paint all our schools as failing, and hopefully as adults they will continue to ask these kinds of questions, delving deeper, and demanding thoughtful answers to important questions. (You can find the disaggregated PISA data on-line, if you are interested, and/or read a related article by Gerald Tirozzi in the NASSP Newsleader -- http://www.principals.org/NewsLeader.)
Sometimes, though, I am puzzled by what appears to be a lack of critical thinking in some of the media reporting today about educational issues, and it seems to me that everyone could use the lessons I saw last Friday in the two 5th grade classrooms. Recently, for example, newspapers reported the results from the international PISA testing, pointing out that the overall U.S. results were in the middle of the group, and using this to again say that our schools are failing. Interestingly, though, this year's PISA results were reported somewhat differently, in that the U.S. data was provided disaggregated by schools at different poverty levels. When you look at the disaggregated data and take the U.S. schools with a poverty level of 10% or less those schools outscored every other nation except Shanghai. The newspaper articles I saw did not mention this, though -- they were fine with simply reporting what they saw as yet another failure of U.S. schools, and didn't think it important to point out that our schools in affluent areas outscore the world, while our schools in poverty-stricken areas come in last. Drawing on what they learned last Friday about propaganda, and about presenting information to achieve a particular purpose, I think our 5th graders might now ask what the intent or purpose is of those who wish to paint all our schools as failing, and hopefully as adults they will continue to ask these kinds of questions, delving deeper, and demanding thoughtful answers to important questions. (You can find the disaggregated PISA data on-line, if you are interested, and/or read a related article by Gerald Tirozzi in the NASSP Newsleader -- http://www.principals.org/NewsLeader.)
Sunday, January 2, 2011
NCLB Measures vs. Actual Student Achievement
I recently read a very interesting paper from the Center on Education Policy entitled "How Many Schools and Districts Have Not Made Adequate Yearly Progress? Four-Year Trends" (available at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html). Aside from the obvious fact that over time more schools and districts are failing to make AYP (inherent in the definition of AYP, which requires equal increments of progress, in all subgroups, toward the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014), the paper contained some fascinating comparisons and illustrated huge discrepancies in NCLB performance among the different states.
But do the differences in NCLB performance really reflect actual comparative student achievement? In 2009, in Massachusetts, 79% of school districts did not make AYP -- a huge percentage! -- and these districts are thus subject to federal sanctions, which could include replacing principals and teachers, paying for private tutoring for students, and/or transporting students to other schools and districts, all of which are costly. In addition, the publicity about the NCLB "failure" of Massachusetts schools decreases parental and community trust and support for the schools. By comparison, in the same year, 2009, in Alabama, only 2% of districts did not make AYP -- thus, only 2% of Alabama districts are subject to federal sanctions and 98% of Alabama districts are regarded as doing well. Are Alabama schools really that much better than Massachusetts schools? Well, on the last NAEP testing, Massachusetts schools were 1st in the nation on the 4th and 8th grade math tests, while Alabama schools were 50th. (The other NAEP test results show similar, although less dramatic, differences.)
This comparison raises many questions for me -- among others, why are we in Massachusetts setting ourselves up for failure, criticism, and compliance with expensive and detrimental sanctions when our schools are doing well on the NAEP national tests and are doing better than other states where the schools are not subject to the sanctions? The federal sanctions seem almost designed to be detrimental to good schools (and there are many good schools and districts in Massachusetts that did not make AYP). There also is no evidence that any of these sanctions is effective in improving schools. So. . . why are we in Massachusetts setting ourselves up for federal sanctions and loss of local control and support for our schools when other states are not? Is there a political agenda being served here? And, if so, whose agenda is it? I think these are important questions to think about and to answer, before we end up doing serious damage to our public school system. . .
But do the differences in NCLB performance really reflect actual comparative student achievement? In 2009, in Massachusetts, 79% of school districts did not make AYP -- a huge percentage! -- and these districts are thus subject to federal sanctions, which could include replacing principals and teachers, paying for private tutoring for students, and/or transporting students to other schools and districts, all of which are costly. In addition, the publicity about the NCLB "failure" of Massachusetts schools decreases parental and community trust and support for the schools. By comparison, in the same year, 2009, in Alabama, only 2% of districts did not make AYP -- thus, only 2% of Alabama districts are subject to federal sanctions and 98% of Alabama districts are regarded as doing well. Are Alabama schools really that much better than Massachusetts schools? Well, on the last NAEP testing, Massachusetts schools were 1st in the nation on the 4th and 8th grade math tests, while Alabama schools were 50th. (The other NAEP test results show similar, although less dramatic, differences.)
This comparison raises many questions for me -- among others, why are we in Massachusetts setting ourselves up for failure, criticism, and compliance with expensive and detrimental sanctions when our schools are doing well on the NAEP national tests and are doing better than other states where the schools are not subject to the sanctions? The federal sanctions seem almost designed to be detrimental to good schools (and there are many good schools and districts in Massachusetts that did not make AYP). There also is no evidence that any of these sanctions is effective in improving schools. So. . . why are we in Massachusetts setting ourselves up for federal sanctions and loss of local control and support for our schools when other states are not? Is there a political agenda being served here? And, if so, whose agenda is it? I think these are important questions to think about and to answer, before we end up doing serious damage to our public school system. . .
Sunday, December 5, 2010
The Nature of Community
I have recently been reading a very interesting book -- Bowling Alone, by Robert Putnam. In this book, Putnam chronicles the decline of participation in community organizations during the past decades and raises the question of the impact of these changes on our society. Reading this book makes me care even more strongly about the development and maintenance of community and the importance of placing community goals first in many instances. This conflict frequently appears in schools, as, for example, in making placement decisions for students, when the best interests of the students as a whole may require a different decision that a parent would prefer for his/her child. It also appears in discussions of budget, at all levels -- local, state, national -- when individual interests (for example, in lower taxes) may conflict with the needs of the community (for safety, for example).
As we all know, our country has a long tradition of individualism and a strong emphasis on individual freedom. However, along with the emphasis on everyone's right to pursue happiness in his/her own way there has also been an equally strong tradition of cooperation and community. (Think, for example, of the individual freedom of the "Wild West" coexisting with the cooperation and community of barn raisings, quilting bees, and sharing resources to survive a difficult winter.) I think there is an important balance here, and I think that we need to consider that balance very carefully in making decisions. Take, for example, charter schools. Charter schools are very popular with many people, and many parents prize their ability to send their children to schools that they choose. However, when charter schools, particularly in urban areas, end up enrolling primarily the children whose parents are motivated and involved, do not have learning disabilities, and whose first language is English, and when they eliminate from their student bodies students who have behavioral difficulties or who are unable to keep up with the pace, the children who are still enrolled in those charters may benefit from attending school with other motivated students without disabilities, but the public schools in those communities end up having the most difficult students to educate with fewer funds available to do it with. Is that what's best for all of us, as a community? Or is it an example of some people profiting at the expense of others?
As everyone knows who knows me, I am a passionate advocate for public schools, for the American common school described in the works of Lawrence Cremin, and for the philosophy expressed so well by John Dewey, when he said, "What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon it destroys our democracy." I am currently very worried about the future of American public schools; I see our excellent public schools (which, in Massachusetts, lead the nation and compare favorably in international comparisons) in danger of being destroyed by short-sighted policies unsupported by evidence (for example, those required by the so-called "Race to the Top", and the increased emphasis on standardized testing to the exclusion of other measures of student achievement).
Getting back to Bowling Alone, I also think that we may need in general to think about moving our current individualism-community balance back a bit in favor of community in all areas, and to remember that we are all in this together. If you read it, and/or if you read Diane Ravitch's recent book on the American school system, let me know what you think!
As we all know, our country has a long tradition of individualism and a strong emphasis on individual freedom. However, along with the emphasis on everyone's right to pursue happiness in his/her own way there has also been an equally strong tradition of cooperation and community. (Think, for example, of the individual freedom of the "Wild West" coexisting with the cooperation and community of barn raisings, quilting bees, and sharing resources to survive a difficult winter.) I think there is an important balance here, and I think that we need to consider that balance very carefully in making decisions. Take, for example, charter schools. Charter schools are very popular with many people, and many parents prize their ability to send their children to schools that they choose. However, when charter schools, particularly in urban areas, end up enrolling primarily the children whose parents are motivated and involved, do not have learning disabilities, and whose first language is English, and when they eliminate from their student bodies students who have behavioral difficulties or who are unable to keep up with the pace, the children who are still enrolled in those charters may benefit from attending school with other motivated students without disabilities, but the public schools in those communities end up having the most difficult students to educate with fewer funds available to do it with. Is that what's best for all of us, as a community? Or is it an example of some people profiting at the expense of others?
As everyone knows who knows me, I am a passionate advocate for public schools, for the American common school described in the works of Lawrence Cremin, and for the philosophy expressed so well by John Dewey, when he said, "What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon it destroys our democracy." I am currently very worried about the future of American public schools; I see our excellent public schools (which, in Massachusetts, lead the nation and compare favorably in international comparisons) in danger of being destroyed by short-sighted policies unsupported by evidence (for example, those required by the so-called "Race to the Top", and the increased emphasis on standardized testing to the exclusion of other measures of student achievement).
Getting back to Bowling Alone, I also think that we may need in general to think about moving our current individualism-community balance back a bit in favor of community in all areas, and to remember that we are all in this together. If you read it, and/or if you read Diane Ravitch's recent book on the American school system, let me know what you think!
Sunday, November 7, 2010
School Climate Update
At this point, we are moving into the third month of the school year, and I am happy to report that we seem to be making progress toward developing the kind of safe and accepting school climate that we want to have for our students. We are using a multi-faceted approach, including work in Open Circle sessions, weekly school meetings, integration into curriculum, lunch and social group meetings, work with individual students, and work in partnership with parents. Our weekly school meetings, first thing on Monday mornings, help to set the tone, and are designed to provide a positive beginning to the week. (This coming Monday morning's meeting will feature a patriotic skit written and performed by three 5th grade girls -- it's wonderful, and I'm excited about including more student performances at school meeting!)
As you also know, we are working with students on specific ways of stopping teasing and bullying. One approach is one which we refer to as "Step 1, Step 2." Step 1 is a difficult, but very important, life skill -- being able to assertively and politely ask another person to change their behavior when their behavior is hurtful to you. Doing this is even difficult for us as adults, but I am hopeful that if we work on it with our students they will be able to develop their communication skills in a way that will serve them well for the rest of their lives. If Step 1 doesn't work, or if a student is unable to do it, we ask them to do Step 2, report the problem to an adult and ask for help -- again, I believe this is an important life skill. Finally, along these lines, we are also talking with students about what they can do to help when they are bystanders, when they see someone doing something mean or hurtful to another person. We have suggested three different actions that students can take in this situation: (1) tell the person to stop ("Step 1" for a bystander); (2) take the target out of the situation (for example, inviting the target to come with them to do something); and (3) report the situation to an adult (the bystander's "Step 2"). We are asking students not to simply watch and do nothing, but to take one of these three actions.
We are hopeful that parents will help and support us in this important work so that our school community will be safe and comfortable for every one of our students. There are two essential ways that parents can help -- first, by modeling kind, courteous behavior themselves, and, second, by talking with their children when they see bullying by others (for example, in the media). Children learn powerfully from their parents, particularly by watching parents' actions and behavior. If parents consistently treat others kindly and comment negatively on examples of unkind behavior, children will learn kind behavior. If, on the other hand, parents treat others unkindly, children will learn that behavior, or if children are continually exposed to the many examples of bullying behavior demonstrated by too many adults in our society (e.g., politicians, sports figures) without parents explaining why that behavior is not acceptable they will come to regard it as acceptable.
Thank you to all the many wonderful parents who are working with us to eliminate the problem of teasing and bullying and to create a community in which everyone is accepted and valued -- I believe that helping children grow into good, caring people is the most important work there is and I appreciate working with everyone in our community toward that goal.
As you also know, we are working with students on specific ways of stopping teasing and bullying. One approach is one which we refer to as "Step 1, Step 2." Step 1 is a difficult, but very important, life skill -- being able to assertively and politely ask another person to change their behavior when their behavior is hurtful to you. Doing this is even difficult for us as adults, but I am hopeful that if we work on it with our students they will be able to develop their communication skills in a way that will serve them well for the rest of their lives. If Step 1 doesn't work, or if a student is unable to do it, we ask them to do Step 2, report the problem to an adult and ask for help -- again, I believe this is an important life skill. Finally, along these lines, we are also talking with students about what they can do to help when they are bystanders, when they see someone doing something mean or hurtful to another person. We have suggested three different actions that students can take in this situation: (1) tell the person to stop ("Step 1" for a bystander); (2) take the target out of the situation (for example, inviting the target to come with them to do something); and (3) report the situation to an adult (the bystander's "Step 2"). We are asking students not to simply watch and do nothing, but to take one of these three actions.
We are hopeful that parents will help and support us in this important work so that our school community will be safe and comfortable for every one of our students. There are two essential ways that parents can help -- first, by modeling kind, courteous behavior themselves, and, second, by talking with their children when they see bullying by others (for example, in the media). Children learn powerfully from their parents, particularly by watching parents' actions and behavior. If parents consistently treat others kindly and comment negatively on examples of unkind behavior, children will learn kind behavior. If, on the other hand, parents treat others unkindly, children will learn that behavior, or if children are continually exposed to the many examples of bullying behavior demonstrated by too many adults in our society (e.g., politicians, sports figures) without parents explaining why that behavior is not acceptable they will come to regard it as acceptable.
Thank you to all the many wonderful parents who are working with us to eliminate the problem of teasing and bullying and to create a community in which everyone is accepted and valued -- I believe that helping children grow into good, caring people is the most important work there is and I appreciate working with everyone in our community toward that goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
