I don't think I can add anything here. Now seems about as good a time as any to go back to the drawing board...
First, Kill All the Pensions
My basic premise is that we have a terrible mismatch between the characteristics of teachers most likely to produce excellent outcomes, and the characteristics of the systems that seek to attract and retain them. We want teachers who demonstrate perseverance coupled with ambition, steady improvement over time, and achievement, without succumbing to complacence. Our school systems, on the other hand, are bastions of stability. They extend the promise of steady employment in a volatile world, substantial job security, and for those who stick it out for long enough, an enormous deferred payoff in the form of benefits and pensions. If we'd designed it from scratch, we would have struggled to produce a system more perfectly designed to attract young people who value stability, or to repel and grind down those who seek constant change.
One way to think about the success of (some) charter schools is their ability to more closely align the work environment with the characteristics of successful teachers. I'd be quick to note that the most successful conventional schools often do this, too. They emphasize constant work, continual improvement, big goals, and perseverance. But it's not clear to me how scalable such successes will prove to be, to the extent that they rely on attracting current teachers who thrive in such environments, and forcing out others who prefer greater stability. What's needed, I'd suggest, are a pair of reforms aimed at aligning these two sets of characteristics more closely - so that instead of re-sorting the existing pool of teachers, we can alter its overall composition.
The first set revolves around labor mobility. Work environments hospitable to continual innovation tend to have relatively low barriers to entry, and relatively low barriers to exit. Schools invert that. Many have extensive up-front credentialing requirements, forcing novice teachers to invest substantial time and money at the beginning of their careers, before they can even decide whether they are indeed well-suited for the job. Early career teachers tend to get the least desirable assignments, and to be paid barely enough on which to live. On the other hand, most compensation packages are grossly back-loaded, offering lock-step seniority raises and substantial retirement benefits. So it's tough to get in the door, and once you do, leaving entails abandoning the rewards for which you've already labored before you can enjoy them. That's crazy.
I'd like to see an entirely new arrangement. Get rid of pensions, retiree health plans, and other benefits that incentivize workers to stick it out. Use the savings to raise early-career salaries to more competitive levels, and to institute generous 401(k) matches. This would, in one fell swoop, make it easier to attract new talent, and easier for those dissatisfied in their schools, their districts, or their careers to seek greener pastures.
The second set of reforms clusters around seniority. People tend to deliver their best work when they take ownership and a sense of professional pride in what they do. At the moment, most teaching assignments and salaries have more to do with seniority than skill. This, too, will tend to foster a careerist, bureaucratic mentality and to attract those who find that comforting - endure the initial overwhelming pain, discharge your responsibilities at the minimal acceptable level for thirty years, and you'll do no better or worse than a colleague who dazzles. In NYC, for example, initial salaries are set on the basis of educational credentials, with seven salary steps based on seniority. More craziness.
Education should, instead, work a little more like other government careers, blending seniority with performance. There should be multiple ranks - say, Teacher I-V - with smaller increases based on experience. Perform superlatively, get an earlier promotion. (This is different than a bonus. There's no evidence that bonuses improve performance in almost any realm, and quite a bit that they lead to gaming of metrics. Promotions, on the other hand, offer dignity and acclaim alongside higher compensation - a better fit for professionals.) Different job titles would have other, salutary effects, most notably in the realm of teacher assignments. As in most careers, promotions could come with increased challenges and responsibilities - say, an assignment to a school more desperately in need of the teacher's demonstrated achievements. It could even tie in to lower barriers to entry - a district could decide that a Teacher I & II needed only basic certification, but that Teachers III-V should have a master's degree. (Turning the masters in education from a qualifying credential to a mid-career refresher capable of preparing particularly good teachers to mentor, chair departments, or discharge other responsibilities is one of my pet notions.)
Think about what a difference this might make, in aggregate, to a hard-working student with a GPA that has risen steadily while in college, a record of leadership in improving extracurriculars, and a good work ethic. That so many such students already choose to teach is a tribute to their idealism and dedication, and to the manifold rewards of a teaching career - a sense of purpose, a family-friendly schedule, and a fair degree of independence among them. But not enough make that choice. With those credentials, the world is their oyster. Why should they suffer relatively low starting salaries, onerous credentialing requirements, undesirable assignments, and a system that does little to reward their initiative or standout achievement?
Those sacrifices will look most attractive to those who value the offsetting rewards - secure, stable employment. But a system that quickly credentials graduates and places them in the classroom, granting them a degree of responsibility few of their peers will enjoy; that puts them in successful schools at the start of their careers, where they can learn best practices first-hand and build their own skill-levels; that allows them to ascend through the ranks of their job, based on their classroom performance; and that enables them to do all of that, without committing to spending a lifetime in a single district, and to walk away if it ever ceases to be rewarding? That's the kind of job that recent college graduates won't just try out for a couple of years before moving on - it's the kind of job they'll fight to keep.
/End Quote
Monday, October 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
On Standardized Tests
I must be on a roll. Actually NYT is. Mayor Bloomberg has released test analysis that indicates that NYC students are performing tremendously better on standardized test since he came into office. The editors invited 8 (and counting?) education professionals to comment on the test results. While I don’t think test results can really demonstrate the potential of a student, I concede that it’s probably the most cost effective method. The commentators definitely provided me with something to think about.
Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas sees nothing wrong with teaching to the test, as long as the tests are of a high quality—particularly reading comprehension. She reads in the New York States tests that even though the number of “passing” students has increased, students’ proficiency actually declines grade over grade. She also wonders if the reading standards of the tests are of a worthwhile quality.
Author and professor James Comer emphasizes that the purpose of education is to “help prepare students to be successful in school and in life; to protect and promote their own health, development and learning, to be highly competent workers in school and beyond, to be competent and responsible family members (parents if they choose) community members and citizens capable of finding gratification and meaning in life.“ I couldn’t agree more. He warns that too much focus on test scores can diminish the variety of efforts and the support system that teachers need to bring up well-rounded students. He sights dropout, crime and dependency rates, as well as quality of life and work as efforts that need focus. I’m sure there are a variety of tangibles that we can measure to determine the success of a student. What are some?
UC Berkley professor Bruce Fuller believes that the exaggerated success that Bloomberg trumpets diminishes his credibility, particularly since states set their own proficiency standards which have been subject to change since the inception of No Child Left Behind. He notes that this is happening across the country and not just in NY. When politicians are under pressure to show progress, they will lower the standards to product results. This again hits me as education being treated as a commodity, a product, and not the valuable conduit toward higher quality of life for all Americans. While NYC students have certainly made progress, Fuller argues that it’s undermined by the city’s self-aggrandized declaration of off the charts success.
Author and Century Foundation fellow Richard D. Kahlenberg similarly argues that exaggerated results can overshadow areas that still need work, particularly, the highly segregated schools of NYC. The fact that the achievement gap between the city’s black and white students has nearly been eliminated has already been used to imply that separate can be equal after all. There is a community aspect that needs to be address, and simply can’t be tested on. He also points out that if these results are true gains, they would be replicated on other achievement tests, which they weren’t.
There was much more commentary and great points and opinions that I can’t summarize here due to lack of time. Please read the article here; I know the other professionals also made some valid points, so please let me know what I failed to add in the comments.
Now, I’m not in education (“Education”) but I think there should be a standard test developed at the federal level or through a consortium of the state educators that is not used to determine whether a student is passed on to the next grade. However, it may be used determine what type of state and federal funding a school or district receives. I think if they can develop an academic test that we can all agree on (fat chance, huh?), then the states can focus on tracking less tangible indicators of success for students. I think if I ever start a school, I would try to use the highest standard of standardized test, and then try to focus on other ways to track their progress.
Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas sees nothing wrong with teaching to the test, as long as the tests are of a high quality—particularly reading comprehension. She reads in the New York States tests that even though the number of “passing” students has increased, students’ proficiency actually declines grade over grade. She also wonders if the reading standards of the tests are of a worthwhile quality.
Author and professor James Comer emphasizes that the purpose of education is to “help prepare students to be successful in school and in life; to protect and promote their own health, development and learning, to be highly competent workers in school and beyond, to be competent and responsible family members (parents if they choose) community members and citizens capable of finding gratification and meaning in life.“ I couldn’t agree more. He warns that too much focus on test scores can diminish the variety of efforts and the support system that teachers need to bring up well-rounded students. He sights dropout, crime and dependency rates, as well as quality of life and work as efforts that need focus. I’m sure there are a variety of tangibles that we can measure to determine the success of a student. What are some?
UC Berkley professor Bruce Fuller believes that the exaggerated success that Bloomberg trumpets diminishes his credibility, particularly since states set their own proficiency standards which have been subject to change since the inception of No Child Left Behind. He notes that this is happening across the country and not just in NY. When politicians are under pressure to show progress, they will lower the standards to product results. This again hits me as education being treated as a commodity, a product, and not the valuable conduit toward higher quality of life for all Americans. While NYC students have certainly made progress, Fuller argues that it’s undermined by the city’s self-aggrandized declaration of off the charts success.
Author and Century Foundation fellow Richard D. Kahlenberg similarly argues that exaggerated results can overshadow areas that still need work, particularly, the highly segregated schools of NYC. The fact that the achievement gap between the city’s black and white students has nearly been eliminated has already been used to imply that separate can be equal after all. There is a community aspect that needs to be address, and simply can’t be tested on. He also points out that if these results are true gains, they would be replicated on other achievement tests, which they weren’t.
There was much more commentary and great points and opinions that I can’t summarize here due to lack of time. Please read the article here; I know the other professionals also made some valid points, so please let me know what I failed to add in the comments.
Now, I’m not in education (“Education”) but I think there should be a standard test developed at the federal level or through a consortium of the state educators that is not used to determine whether a student is passed on to the next grade. However, it may be used determine what type of state and federal funding a school or district receives. I think if they can develop an academic test that we can all agree on (fat chance, huh?), then the states can focus on tracking less tangible indicators of success for students. I think if I ever start a school, I would try to use the highest standard of standardized test, and then try to focus on other ways to track their progress.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Teaching & Unions
I read this article in the New York Times about unionizing in charter schools that seemed to focus on Illinois. Teachers at charter schools were frustrated with the long hours and the high turnover. They felt they deserved a comparable wage to what public school teachers earn, and that the workload was affecting the quality of the service they provide. Here in Illinois, charter schools are increasing in popularity and the governor has just signed a bill to double their number in Illinois.
I know almost nothing about unions. Learning about them is on my bucket list. What I do know is that unions get very bad press. They are blamed for the excessive costs that brought down GM and Chrysler. However, a lack of them is also said to maintain the low wages associated with southern car manufacturing plants, as well as pricing GM and Chrysler out of business. I think they’re very necessary for workers to have their voice heard, and people had to fight for the right to form a union.
The unions are empowering some charter school teachers, according to the NYT article. However, this article on Huffington Post is a glaring counter point. Over 700 teachers are sitting around doing nothing with full pay, because the union limbo (not to mention a swamp of corrupt administrators). My simple mind wonders if some unions may too big to work effectively for both teachers and students. You want the teachers to have equivalent pay, especially across a school district. However, you also want the schools to have freedom to design their own schedules and curriculum and the flexibility to put the right teachers where they're needed most.
Do private schools have unions? I think that in society today we’ve turned education into a commodity, to the point where people start to believe that is something they can do without. But that’s another blog post.
I’m going to learn more about unions to find out:
1. Prevalence of unions in Illinois, USA.
- Numbers
- Mission statements
2. Conditions that facilitate union activity.
3. Perception of unions’ impact on student performance.
4. Perceived wins and losses for teachers unions.
I know almost nothing about unions. Learning about them is on my bucket list. What I do know is that unions get very bad press. They are blamed for the excessive costs that brought down GM and Chrysler. However, a lack of them is also said to maintain the low wages associated with southern car manufacturing plants, as well as pricing GM and Chrysler out of business. I think they’re very necessary for workers to have their voice heard, and people had to fight for the right to form a union.
The unions are empowering some charter school teachers, according to the NYT article. However, this article on Huffington Post is a glaring counter point. Over 700 teachers are sitting around doing nothing with full pay, because the union limbo (not to mention a swamp of corrupt administrators). My simple mind wonders if some unions may too big to work effectively for both teachers and students. You want the teachers to have equivalent pay, especially across a school district. However, you also want the schools to have freedom to design their own schedules and curriculum and the flexibility to put the right teachers where they're needed most.
Do private schools have unions? I think that in society today we’ve turned education into a commodity, to the point where people start to believe that is something they can do without. But that’s another blog post.
I’m going to learn more about unions to find out:
1. Prevalence of unions in Illinois, USA.
- Numbers
- Mission statements
2. Conditions that facilitate union activity.
3. Perception of unions’ impact on student performance.
4. Perceived wins and losses for teachers unions.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
History is written by the Victors…
I’m excited to see this article because curriculum is the aspect of education that I’m most interested in. When I was in college, I worked in math education research and with an institute that create elementary math and science curriculum. Clearly, as evidenced by the arguments put forth in this Wall Street Journal article, it has the ability to have the greatest impact on students. I would like to develop a model of engaging teachers so that they have the greatest impact on the curriculum. I think you want to have standards, but you also want to give teachers the freedom to engage their students.
This clearly is a very controversial issue. I’m upset and surprised by how quickly and easily some of the people in the article conjure images of war. Words have impacts and I don’t think that is impressed on people enough; maybe that should be taught in school.
I think religious education is a very good thing but I think it should be done at church, after school. I also think teachers make great church leaders, specifically because of the tools they learn in their day job. But I think it’s kind of lazy that don’t want to teach religion after school and insist on incorporating it in their day jobs. I think religious schools and religious after school programs are great way for children to spend their time, to keep them out of trouble and keep them from settling roots in front of the TV. There is a huge opportunity there that I hope people are taking advantage of. But I think it doesn’t belong in schools.
I also think it’s ironic that some reviewers of the curriculum insisted on teaching in a public school that separation of church and state has biblical origins....
Monday, July 13, 2009
Science Unlearned
It came to me in a dream last night to start a blog about education in the news. Lo and behold the first article I see on Salon today is about Why America is Flunking Science. Science and math were my favorite subjects in school so my heart frowns whenever I see people reject the art and beauty of science.
This article doesn't actually talk about why we're failing science, as much as it elaborates on the culture around science and scientist. It argues on the one hand that movies and entertainment have boxed science into the realm of crazy villains and lonely nerds, and distorted it just enough that if someone by chance did want to be a crazy nerd, real science is much harder and more boring than it looked on the screen. On the other hand, we're not failing science--we're just cherry picking the science we want to trust, which most of the time is wrong.
I think that ideally, scientist and educators want to see science as a benevolent, neutral observer of nature. But in reality it is biased and controversial and used in morally ambiguous ways. Science has been manipulated for political and financial gain for centuries, and that also leads people to be suspicious. I think it's unfair to say it's up to the scientific community to dispel the myths and caricatures about science. It's up to all of us to open our eyes and level our heads. I think it would also help if teachers, even in introductory science courses, discussed the way science is applied to our life and our view of life and society. Students should be given the skills to come to unbiased conclusions and recognize biased uses of science. Just my 2 cents...
Bear with me. It's my first blog.
This article doesn't actually talk about why we're failing science, as much as it elaborates on the culture around science and scientist. It argues on the one hand that movies and entertainment have boxed science into the realm of crazy villains and lonely nerds, and distorted it just enough that if someone by chance did want to be a crazy nerd, real science is much harder and more boring than it looked on the screen. On the other hand, we're not failing science--we're just cherry picking the science we want to trust, which most of the time is wrong.
I think that ideally, scientist and educators want to see science as a benevolent, neutral observer of nature. But in reality it is biased and controversial and used in morally ambiguous ways. Science has been manipulated for political and financial gain for centuries, and that also leads people to be suspicious. I think it's unfair to say it's up to the scientific community to dispel the myths and caricatures about science. It's up to all of us to open our eyes and level our heads. I think it would also help if teachers, even in introductory science courses, discussed the way science is applied to our life and our view of life and society. Students should be given the skills to come to unbiased conclusions and recognize biased uses of science. Just my 2 cents...
Bear with me. It's my first blog.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)