by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

As the 2010 political season heats up, the nation’s unemployment rate has become a key issue.    The discussion typically revolves around how the future of elected officials will be ultimately determined by the public’s assessment of the jobs situation in the country.  Arguments abound as to the causes.  Some say that the crisis is the result of the downturn in the economy, while others blame poorly implemented government interventions.  Outsourcing and greed are also worked into the conversation.  I would like to offer a contrarian view.  The United States does not have an unemployment problem.  The United States has an education problem.

Some stunning numbers

Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data illuminate some of the root causes of the current dilemma.  The overall jobless rate of 9.5% does not reveal the true story – at least not in its entirety.  Individuals without a high school diploma are more than three times as likely (13.8%) to be unemployed as people who have a college degree (4.5%). And having a high school diploma provides scant assistance (10.1%).   The economy is not merely shedding jobs; it is sending a clear message as to the economic future of our least educated. 

Far worse than it looks

While those numbers may not be surprising for some people, there are other facts that are legitimate reason for alarm.  By virtually every measure the United States is quickly becoming a world leader in high school dropouts.  A  news report on CBS related that our country which once boasted the highest graduation rate in the world now ranks 18th among industrialized nations.  If the downward trajectory continues the results would be calamitous.  This country may soon be facing an economic decline, which has little to do with derivatives and everything to do with diplomas.

Connecting the dots

The most terrifying aspect of all of these numbers is the fact that few people are really talking about them.  You cannot walk ten feet in this country without a discussion breaking out about the Mosque at ground zero, the oil spill in the Gulf or the future of Bret Favre.  And although there is also conversation about job loss, it fails to address the root cause.  If the unemployment numbers drop from 9.5% to say 8.5% the pundits will declare victory and move on to the next problem.   Even though the numbers that really matter are a high school dropout rate of more than 30% and rising, and a world rank of 18th and falling.

The world of 2010 has become a much less forgiving place for those individuals who have not completed high school.  If history is any guide, the general economy will eventually recover and the country will move on to yet another political crisis.  But the truth is until we, as a nation, find a way to ensure a good education for every citizen, the tragedy of unemployable individuals will never disappear. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post, Mel Riddile discussed the difficulties inherent in using test scores to evaluate schools and teachers based on results from exams that are meaningless for the students. He referred to the student practice called “Christmas-treeing.”  This occurs when students draw decorative designs on answer sheets to tests that have no impact on their own academic success.  Several years ago I saw first-hand the difference student accountability can make in achievement.  In the first year the English Standards of Learning (SOL) tests in Virginia became mandatory for graduation, the pass rate in the state rose more than twenty points from the low seventies to the nineties. In previous years the annual increases in scores had been in the low single digits. What follows is an account of how my former school successfully dealt with the problem of student indifference on standardized tests.

For the first few years of SOL testing the scores did not count for the students but the overall results for each school were published throughout the state.  This set of circumstances led to a spate of bogus answer sheets resulting in a great deal of teacher frustration.  Even after the tests became a component of graduation the problem did not completely disappear.  Because many students needed only to pass four of the nine non-English exams, many test takers continued to be unmotivated.  Our district did little to lessen the problem by issuing an announcement that refused to allow any grade ramifications for the results.  But we did discover one caveat in the document—an area or district director could approve an incentive proposal.  With that exception in mind we submitted the following plan:  

“In order to motivate our students on the SOL exams, teachers would like to use the SOL testing results as a portion of a student’s final exam grade.  We strongly believe this provision will serve as a stimulus for our students to perform at their highest level on these extremely critical tests. 

“Our program would be as follows:

“Teachers will be allowed to count a student’s SOL test as a maximum of 50% of the final exam grade.  (The final exam cannot count for more than the district-approved 20% of a student’s final grade.)  Teachers have the option of counting the SOL exam as less than 50% based upon their professional philosophy.  However there should be a consistent policy for each course.  (All Algebra 1 classes would have the SOL test count in the same manner. They would not, however, have to have a policy identical to other courses such as Biology, Chemistry, etc.)

“A conversion table would be used to give a percentage score for each SOL test. 

“Rationale:

“This approach to the SOL incentive will give student performance greater validity. It would encourage students who do not believe they can score 500 to work as hard as possible since virtually every SOL point matters in the calculation of their grades.

The conversion scale*:

*The SOL exam is scored on a scale of 200-600

400-499 is passing and above 500 pass advanced

While this plan was approved by the area director it was not without controversy.  Some administrators and other teachers found this solution to be less of an incentive and more of a punishment because students who barely passed the SOL received grades equivalent to “D” and “C-“.  One administrator posed the following question: “What if I had a student who worked really hard and rarely missed class and had a B+ average and he gets a 402 on his SOL exam and is given a D for half of his final?  Is that fair?”  Other teachers countered with the question, “How can a student earn a grade like that in a course and answer only half of the questions correctly on a multiple-choice test?”   Still others felt that the incentives should be only positive.  Their plan was to give a set amount of bonus exam points for passing (400 - 499) and two additional ones for passing advanced (500-600) but no points for failure.  The argument with this plan was two-fold.   Considering a score of 400 and 499 of equal value did not seem either fair or particularly inspiring. Also, placing no penalty for scoring below 400 could be viewed by certain students as a reason not to give a maximum effort. 

Finally, the initial plan was approved and remained in place for a number of years at the school.  Most teachers felt that it worked extremely well both in terms of motivating students to perform at their highest level and as a fair and accurate assessment of what they actually learned in the class.  While the percentages used to partially calculate their final exam scores did not have an overwhelming impact on the year-long grade, they had enough of an effect to warrant student attention.  And the adjusted values directly reflected each individual’s actual results on the SOL exam.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Principals take note. There is a bull’s eye on your back!

The policy wonks new mantra is “We’ve got to do something. We must improve schools.” So, what do we do? Let’s find a convenient target of opportunity and strike. Then, at least we can say we did something. So, what is the easiest target? Not the teachers. There are too many teachers, and besides, everyone likes teachers. Let’s replace the principal. After all, when things aren’t going well at a school, the principal should be held responsible. For more than a decade, the school’s report card has been the principal’s report card. As one of my mentors told me years ago, “You (the principal) can delegate responsibility, but never accountability.

For someone to believe that the current school reform models are viable ways to improve schools, they would have to believe that the principal acts autonomously, independent of the school district. In fact, this could not be farther from the truth.

Take for instance the situation in Columbus, Ohio. For the first week of school, student transportation was a nightmare. Buses, when they did arrive, were as much as one to two hours late. The author, writing on the Flypaper blog, thought that was “appalling.” “In six days of school, only four of the buses that service CCA (Columbus Collegiate Academy) have been on time. School starts at 7:50 a.m., and First Student buses have dropped kids off as many as two hours late. You can imagine the impact this has on lost instructional time (not to mention the level of frustration experienced by parents, some of whom are new to the school).”

Guess who took the brunt of the teacher, parent, and student frustration--the principal, of course.

I learned very early as a principal that, as far as the students, parents, and teachers were concerned, I, the principal, was the school system. When the system doesn’t work, it is the principal who hears about it. When the buses were late, the lunches were cold, the books weren’t delivered, or when the AC didn’t work, it was the principal’s fault and responsibility to correct it.

I have better example than the Columbus bus fiasco. Six days is nothing. Try six weeks. A while back as the new principal, the district hit me with, what I refer to today as the “trifecta”—a three-part disaster. Yes, this was a set up, but it wasn’t intentional. At least, most of it wasn’t.

I was the new principal at the school in which the former principal had served for the last twenty-two years. I wanted to get off to a good start and make a good impression. Anyone who has ever worked in a school knows that everything is a team effort including transportation, food services, human resources, and facilities. If one part of the team drops the ball, the school suffers and the principal looks bad. If the school does well, it is because it has great teachers. If the school does poorly, it is because the principal is not getting the job done.

Trifecta: Part 1: Transportation

For the first six weeks of school, all buses were forty-five minutes to one hour late every day. Irate parents tied up the phone lines every morning. The police were upset because they couldn’t plan for traffic control. Teachers didn’t know when the buses arrived, so they had no idea when to start classes. Most days, we were getting ready to serve lunch before the students had even arrived. I spent the entire day apologizing publicly and complaining privately. I have never felt so helpless.

Trifecta: Part 2: Scheduling

Before I arrived in mid-July, I was assured by district staff that the master schedule would be completed. Well, it was completed except that 20% of the students had incomplete schedules. It seems that someone in central office had the bright idea to experiment with the schedule by placing another variable in the equation--all students would be grouped in clusters in which they would have the same core teachers. This resulted in numerous conflicts. However, instead of taking out the variable and running the schedule again, they decided to close it out and require the school to hand schedule 20% of the students. Anyone who has ever worked on a high school master schedule knows that this would amount to requiring the school to hand schedule all 2,600 students.

Trifecta: Part 3: Personnel

A district official warned me in advance on more than one occasion, that I would most likely have a certain individual sabotage the opening, and sure enough, it happened. While I am not going to go into detail here, suffice it to say that a lot of things went wrong like the box of welcome to school letters later found in a closet. In addition, the letter for the antique school marquee mysteriously disappeared. You get the drift. Instead of taking care of the problem that they knew for certain would occur, the central office let it happen.

Sometimes you can look back on situations like this and laugh. I regret that, to this day, I get sick to the stomach just thinking about the stress and tension I was under. I cannot imagine what would have happened if I were new to the principalship and had no reputation to fall back on.

Reality Check

Here is a notice to all of the education experts who have never worked in a school, and whose only experience is that of having been a student. Principals don’t function autonomously. I had no control over the buses, personnel decisions, or the student scheduling process that year. As a new principal to that school, forces that were beyond my control seriously undermined my efforts. How could I make a case for high expectations and bell-to-bell instruction, when the buses were late every day?

Principals don’t make policy. They carry out policy. Principals depend on their districts to provide the resources and support they need.

Principals should be held accountable, but so should the school districts. Before principals are replaced under the new federal requirements, school districts should be required to supply proof that they provided resources and support to the principal and the school. Give principals the autonomy to hire teachers and administrators. Give them control over their budget. Then hold them accountable.

If individual teachers are to be held accountable for student test scores, the students should be held accountable. In too many states, students are “christmas-treeing” tests because they are not accountable for their performance.

In a functional system, everyone in the system is accountable and everyone takes ownership of the outcomes. Only a dysfunctional system would single out certain, specific individuals for accountability purposes.

The reality is that principals have no tenure. They serve at the pleasure of the superintendent and the school board. Principals can and frequently are replaced on a whim. Just as in professional sports, it is much easier to replace the coach than all the players.

The problem isn’t that we need to get rid of principals. The problem is that we need to hold on to them. Principal turnover, particularly in under-resourced, high-poverty schools is astronomical. Working in an under-resourced school demands a high level of “moral purpose”, but in today’s slash-and-burn climate it is a career-killer. Principals are leaving under-resourced schools, there very schools where they are needed the most, in droves because their pleas for help and resources fall on deaf ears.

Instead of scapegoating principals, we need to train them and we need to give them the resources, equipment, and support they need to do their jobs. Then and only then can we rightfully hold them accountable.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

High schools make the “dropout factory” list when then they have a 60% or lower cohort graduation rate over four years. Now, colleges and universities are under the microscope, and based on Jay Mathews report on a Washington Monthly article, they should be. While encouraging my students to take a rigorous course of study in high school, I have warned them for years that “universities are more than happy to take your money and send you home,” but never in my wildest dreams did I believe that a college could have a six-year, not four-year, graduation rate of 4.98%.

You have to see it to believe it. So, here is a listing of the bottom ten:

1. Southern University at New Orleans, La. 4.98 percent
2. Allen University, S.C. 6.09
3. Martin University, Ind. 6.67
4. Bellevue University, Neb. 6.99
5. Calumet College of Saint Joseph, Ind. 7.14
6. Baker College of Auburn Hills, Mich. 7.14
7. Visible School--Music and Worships Arts College, Ind. 7.50
8. University of the District of Columbia, D.C. 7.94
9. Saint Augustine's College, N.C. 8.24
10. Nyack College, N.Y. 7.9

My reaction is simple. You can’t make this up!

Share this with your counselors and encourage them to read the article. It is an eye opener.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post I decried the decision by the Los Angeles United School District to publicly release a list ranking 6,000 elementary school teachers based on their students’ standardized test scores.  My main argument against this practice was the havoc it would cause in terms of teacher cooperation, staff morale and administrative anxiety.   My assumption at the time I posted this blog was that at least the standardized tests that the teacher evaluations were based on were valid – maybe not perfect, but valid.  However, recent disclosures about the validity of the New York Regents exams has caused me to question the suitability of using end-of-course test scores in any effort to evaluate teachers. 

The Gold Standard No More

During the implementation of the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) exams, teachers were instructed to use the Regents exams of New York as a model for what the state was trying to accomplish with their standardized tests.  Sample Regents or Regents-like exam questions were disseminated to assist teachers in preparing their students for the SOLs.  Virginia clearly wanted to develop a set of exams to demonstrate mastery of a subject in a manner similar to the New York exams. 

Flash forward to 2010.  A recent article in the Albany Times Union reveals that passing the Regents exams has little relevance to a student’s educational accomplishments.  As reported by Times Union education reporter Scott Waldman:

“A quarter of New York’s college students in two- and four-year schools need extra academic help, according to the Education Department. And though nearly three-quarters of students have passed the core Regents exams for the last three school years, just a third of them scored over 85, the bar set by SUNY schools.”

To complete the downgrading of a once proud educational innovation, Waldman adds that the Regents are now “so hard to fail they have become meaningless.” 

The teachers preparing students to take test understand that the rigor has been so reduced that it is now virtually irrelevant.  In order to graduate a student must score at least 65 on five Regents exams.  According to a social studies teacher in Queens a student can miss 15 of 50 multiple choice questions on one of the exams and still earn a raw score of 90. 

Tip of the Iceberg

How many of the tests being used by states to monitor student progress are being created poorly and graded ineffectually?  I have already shown through a statistical analysis that due to the construction of the test (multiple-choice with no penalty for guessing) and a low passing score (50%), an individual can pass the Virginia Algebra 1 SOL exam by answering slightly less than 40% of the questions correctly. These standards should not equate passing with demonstrating mastery of a subject.  Moreover, making the Regents, SOLs and any other barrier exams so easy that they become extremely difficult to fail should cast serious doubt about their reliability as a component of teacher evaluations.  If the Obama Administration, the LAUSD and others want to tie teacher performance to student test scores there needs to be a significant commitment to creating tests that accurately determine a student’s actual comprehension of the curriculum and a teacher’s ability to implement a program that delivers that knowledge.  That commitment will include the funding to write and grade tests that are not exclusively multiple-choice and the courage to establish standards that will reveal more accurately the success or failure of a school system.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The Los Angeles Times with the cooperation of the leadership of the Los Angeles United School District (LAUSD) is publishing standardized test results listing more than 6,000 elementary school teachers in terms of their classroom effectiveness. The ranking of these educators by a “value added” analysis of their students’ scores on standardized exams is enthusiastically applauded by Education Secretary Arne Duncan who says, "In education, we've been scared to talk about success."  Duncan’s stance was that the public disclosure of the results would allow school systems to identify teachers who are doing things right.  "We can't do enough to recognize them, reward them, but — most importantly — to learn from them," he said.   Secretary Duncan is not alone in praising this effort.   Bonnie Reiss, California’s Secretary of Education has announced that the state will encourage districts to follow the lead of LAUSD.  

Standardized Tests Scores and Teachers

I, myself, have written on a number of occasions of my conditional support for the use of standardized tests scores in evaluating teacher and school performance.  My critical qualifier though has always been that the people doing the interpreting must have a clear understanding of what the information actually means.  There needs to be a high level of sophistication when reviewing a complicated set of data.  When that level of competence is attained then teachers should be held responsible for their students’ test scores. To that end, I applaud the introduction of “value added” data which measure scores in a longitudinal manner rather than in simple raw numbers.  This is a significant first step in creating meaningful measuring tools.   

But how can we expect the general public without any context to accurately assess the meaning of the numbers being released?  It is unlikely that a primer explaining in detail exactly what is being conveyed will accompany the listing. What is far more likely is that the community will look for the number next to a name and rate the teacher exclusively on the position of that number in the ranking. There is truth in the old adage that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Bad, Worse and Worst Outcomes

Competition does not necessarily make everything better.  That approach may work in some vocations but not in the world of education.   To the contrary the competitive nature of publically ranking teachers will impair schools causing decreased professional collaboration, lowered morale and administrative nightmares.

The most successful educational staffs are the ones who share their best techniques and strategies with each other.   When teachers are pitted against one another as will be the case when their “scores” are posted in public, cooperation within a building will take a significant hit.   When was the last time the pitching coach for the Red Sox sent an email to a Yankee hurler with a helpful suggestion?  Unfortunately, it is also highly unlikely that the teacher ranked 43rd is going to be giving tips to the one sitting at 54th.   

Staff morale will also be negatively impacted. Duncan’s claim that the primary outcome of this exercise will be to “celebrate our best teachers” is laughable. If that were the goal, to celebrate teachers, then the correct approach would be to list only the top 10% of the teachers instead of all of them. Does the secretary think the readers are not going to move quickly to their child’s teacher’s rank?  Rest assured morale will plummet as individuals keep one eye on the “standings” and one on their classrooms. As parents and students demand placement in what are now perceived as the best teachers’ classrooms, an emotional price will be paid.

And how are administrative staffs going to handle the repercussions from the release of this value added analysis?  How does one tell someone that their child must stay in the classroom of the 14th rated teacher when their neighbor’s child is across the hall in number 8?  Can class sizes remain in balance under this predictable onslaught?  And will some of these rankings become self-fulfilling prophecies if certain teachers have classes primarily populated with the children of the most activist parents while others are overloaded with the families least involved in the process? When a principal has a teacher who is ranked 5421st on his staff, what should be his response to the inevitable parent concerns?

Bottom Line

Publishing these numbers in this manner is not only mean-spirited it is destined to be tragically ineffective if the goal is to improve the teaching profession. What is needed is a better evaluation process which has the ability to help struggling teachers and terminate unproductive ones.    Instead of simply printing lists, continue to refine the “value added” measure of student test results as a part of the larger process of analyzing the totality of a teacher’s performance.  Then create a procedure that will quickly identify and remove weak members.  The end point of this more effective, albeit more difficult, approach would be a staff populated by uniformly capable educators.  Only then should we feel free to talk about and celebrate success.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

How many times have you heard Mel Riddile or I say that “given adequate time and assistance, every child can learn?”  Too many times to count, I am sure.  Why?  Mel Riddile sincerely believes that the key to success in education is maximizing contact time between teachers and students.  He even once bought t-shirts for his entire faculty with the statement “It’s about Time” emblazoned on the pockets.  And now there is more concrete evidence of the accuracy of these convictions.  A recent Washington Post editorial has shown that there is a clear link between student success and the use of increased class time and the KIPP program.  According to the paper:

“A NEW REPORT documents again that middle school students in the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) outperform their counterparts in traditional public schools -- and debunks some of the arguments often used to discount KIPP's success. One reason KIPP students learn more is that they are in school more.”

It is critical to note that the mere extension of time is not by itself a guarantee of improved student achievement.  What KIPP is doing and what others should emulate is that they are using their time in a far more efficient manner.  Some of their innovations would not be possible in the public sector due to the cost involved.  Their school day is from 7:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., which is at least two hours more than most systems.  Many KIPP schools have Saturday sessions.  In today’s economic climate, the funds needed to have similar programs in public education are, unfortunately, not available.  (That situation will be the focus of a future blog.)  But the one KIPP innovation that deserves to be emulated is their approach to the summer.  Instead of having the vast amount of down time associated with the majority of public schools, the KIPP centers have placed several weeks of mandatory instruction right in the middle of the traditional break.

Inertia can be unproductive

American schools continue to cling to an agrarian calendar that was far more appropriate when our children actually planted the crops in the spring, tended to them in the summer and assisted in the fall harvest.  While most institutions have moved beyond the 19^th century, education, at least in structuring its calendar, is hanging onto the good old days.  And the public seems content with the status quo.  We have replaced working in the fields with trips to the beach, part time jobs, camps, and amusement parks.  In the state of Virginia there is a practice commonly known as “The Kings Dominion Rule” which says that public schools cannot open until after Labor Day in order to ensure both the availability of a young work force and the possibility for families to visit the various state theme parks through the first weekend in September.  Combining this statute with a fluke in the calendar and in the summer of 2009 most students in the Commonwealth had twelve weeks without school.  Throw in standardized testing for the last few weeks of school and students are out of contact with direct instruction for more than 25% of the year.  Is it any wonder that the first month of most school years is spent on review?

Finding Solutions

The difference in contact time between typical public education and KIPP is immense.  The Post estimates it at about 600 more hours per year.  While it would be unrealistic to try to narrow that gap at this time, currently many districts are headed in the wrong direction and actually exacerbating the problem.  To save money, calendars are being cut, classes are being enlarged and programs are being cancelled.  In many districts, remediation is being built into the day either through expanded lunch periods or separate periods, thus further reducing actual class time. 

There are, however, steps that can be taken to better utilize the time currently available.  These would not cost additional funds but would require courageous and determined leadership to break some long-held habits. 

Create a 12-month school year.  Put down the hoe and pick up a book.  Or rather, leave the beach and head for the classroom.  Create four ten-week grading periods.  Place breaks of two weeks in the fall and spring, three weeks in winter and five weeks in the summer.  Intervention sessions can be incorporated in the shorter breaks as well as teacher workdays.  Most summer schools have been truncated to less than five weeks so they can still be available if needed.

Schools should consider the 4x4 plan.  Instead of having six or seven classes, offer students four classes in each of the ten-week sessions.  These classes would meet in a full block every day thus completing a semester of work each session.  This change would allow students to enroll in eight courses in a calendar year.  The blocks would be slightly shorter than other schedules but by meeting every day review would be significantly reduced and ultimately create more class time for original work.

Every minute of the school day should be used for learning.  If the day begins at 7:20 and ends at 2:05 every minute should be utilized to educate.  Pep rallies, class and club meetings, and remediation will be held after school.  If they are important enough to disrupt teaching, they should be important enough to stay after to attend.  Creating a culture that believes that school activities can be consummated after the last class expands the day for everyone. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Public Policy Institute of California has published a report evaluating the success of a comprehensive literacy initiative implemented in the San Diego Unified School District, the second largest district in the state, between 2000-2005. While the school district employed different strategies at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, professional development for teachers was consistent at all levels. The results outlined in the report carry important implications for secondary leaders who seek to improve student performance by improving literacy skills.

Time – Increased time devoted to reading resulted in significant improvement at the elementary and middle school levels, but not at high school. An extended school year at the elementary level and extended-length English classes at the middle level resulted in significant student gains. The study did find that high school students who participated in triple-length English classes were more likely to be promoted to the next grade but were not prepared to participate in college-level courses. The extra time spent on reading did not diminish performance in other courses nor were students discouraged as evidenced by lower graduation rates.

Professional Development – The study found that the investment in professional development for teachers was a key factor in improving student achievement.

Fidelity of Implementation – The study pointed out “a key aspect of San Diego’s reform program was that it was comprehensive and coherent. Interventions often were applied in two or more of the elementary, middle, and high school grade spans. Further, professional development was delivered uniformly, with a single focused goal, to teachers throughout the district.”

Change takes time! – The report emphasizes the need for policy makers and districts to be patient. Many of the reforms took years to bear fruit. For example, peer coaching did not result in improvement in the early stages of the program, but did in the remaining years. Apparently, this is a message that has been missed by most school reformers.

Implications for school leaders

When it comes to improving literacy skills, the longer we wait to intervene, the more difficult it is. Elementary and middle school students can catch up if given more time and better-trained teachers. However, high school students are often so far behind that extended English classes are not sufficient.

We learned from practice that students who do not come from language-enriched homes needed direct, explicit literacy instruction each year or their skills did not improve. Our school had a large number of under-resourced students who had not had reading instruction since the 3rd grade. As a result, we had many students who were reading at the 4th, 5th and 6th grade levels.

In that most high school texts are written at the 11th grade level, we had to help students make five or six years of progress just to be able to do high school work. When our students entered the 9th grade lacking literacy skills, our goal became graduation not college-readiness.

High school students who lack literacy skills are critically ill education patients who need intensive interventions taught by trained specialists in addition to a comprehensive school wide approach that supports the work they do in the intervention classes. Even in the best of circumstances, it takes years to bring students up to level.

High school principals and teachers are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Only 20% of students arrive in the 9th grade on-target for postsecondary education. Yet, high schools are held accountable for preparing all students to be college-, career-, and workplace-ready, and, according to the current reform models, they have one to two years in which to do so.

Responsible change takes hard work, patience and time!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Middle schools in the Silicon Valley have a math problem.  In an area densely populated with engineers, only 30% of the students have been able to master Algebra 1 by the end of the 8^th grade.  The general consensus is that the blame for this situation rests squarely on the backs of the math teachers.  In an effort to improve the situation the Krause Center for Innovation (KFI) of Foothill College, a local community college, has created a very unique solution.  The school’s faculty has begun to implement the FAME (Faculty Academy for Mathematics Excellence) program for middle school math teachers in the area.  Professors from the school work with math faculty in the middle schools using a model from Korea where the use of real world problems is a focal point of the instruction.  The emphasis is on reviewing the material in Pre-algebra and Algebra 1.  The goal is to improve the math skills of these educators and help them better prepare their students for success in Algebra 1.

A plan that will help but…

There is little question that some form of intervention was necessary in these schools.  According to an article in the Los Angeles Crier, the reasons for these shortcomings are quite apparent.

“The Silicon Valley continues to experience a shortage of engineers from its own backyard, because most students are not prepared for advanced math,” according to Rebecca Salner, spokeswoman for the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which funds FAME. “In fact, 70 percent of its students fail to master Algebra I by the end of eighth grade,” she said.

“Many students get bored with math,” said KCI Executive Director Gay Krause, a former middle school principal.

“A lot of teachers in the middle-school level had limited math training, one course training,” said FAME Program Director Joe Chee. They know how to do the math problems but don’t have conceptual understanding to explain why the answer is wrong and to diagnose (the problem) when students aren’t getting it.  Most teachers concentrate on procedure instead of showing students how to apply the underlying concepts,” Chee said. “Teachers present students with a simple problem and show them how to solve it, leaving students to replicate the solution in answering similar questions without full comprehension of the fundamental theories.”

All of these observations make it quite obvious that the status quo is not working in these schools and there is little doubt that the work of FAME will improve what is clearly a bad situation

Is this really the best solution?

As well intended and even successful as the FAME program may be there is, however, an 800-pound gorilla in the classroom that no one seems to want to acknowledge.  Is it really all that surprising that teachers equipped with only a single process course addressing the nuances of teaching Algebra 1 were unable to prepare their students to acquire mastery of a critical gateway math course?  This lack of success is no more surprising than if someone attempted to teach high school Spanish after completing a Berlitz course.

The fundamental flaw in this set of circumstances is that teachers with such limited math skills should have never been placed into these classrooms.  A school district that allows someone to teach Algebra 1 with a single “add-on” class may be fortunate to have even 30% of the students succeed.  Of course, the definition of “mastery” has not been clearly stated so even that number may be inflated.  Success in middle school Algebra 1 is a tricky proposition under the best of circumstances.  Hiring educators without a strong knowledge of the curriculum is a formula for disaster.  A program like FAME could be a positive addition to any school system regardless of the level of its success and in a variety of subject areas.  But it should be utilized as an accessory teaching tool rather than the primary component.

A Better Approach

Placing teachers with insufficient credentials in charge of crucial math classes that occur at a pivotal point in a student’s education is a dangerous policy.  The potential for damage is too great to allow for on-the-job training in an Algebra 1 classroom.  Preparing teachers to be competent must occur before they enter the classroom, not after it has been determined they are unqualified.  Relying on an intervention program like FAME rather than rigorous academic teacher preparation means that improvements will be obtained only after students have been academically impaired. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Sarah Garland wonders out loud why a disproportionate number of high schools are involved in the turnaround grant program. She is asking the right questions, but the answers she received don’t tell the whole story. These grants may, in fact, be a case of too little too late. I thought that it might help to offer a high school principal’s perspective.

Every Grade

High schools should not be singled out for any special treatment and neither should middle or elementary schools. Every grade in school is just as important as any other. What year would you advise your own child to take off? Most likely you would want every year of schooling to be a quality experience. Everyone must come to accept the fact that every minute counts with every student. I used to believe that low-performing ninth graders had three more years to catch up. However, I learned through practice, now supported by research that those students would most likely drop out. The reality is that marginal middle school students fail in high school. Students do not suddenly lose their math or literacy skills when they walk through the doors of a high school, nor can they suddenly make up a three-year deficit after entering high school. If, as a high school principal, I were given a choice between receiving a federal turnaround grant or having students arrive at my school on-target for post-secondary education, I would not hesitate to choose the latter. I learned the hard way that waiting for students to fall behind and then spending large amounts of money to catch them up is a high-risk strategy doomed to fail.

The Funding Gap

While most would agree that every year in school is important, that is not how federal funding has flowed. In fact, when it comes to funding, the federal recording has been stuck on elementary schools for years. Policy makers have erroneously believed that a strong beginning in the early grades would carry students to success in later years. That may work for advantaged middle class students, but for under-resourced students this plan has been a disaster. In literacy for example, students who do not come from language enriched home environments need direct, explicit literacy instruction each and every year or they will not progress. To the shock and dismay of our elementary principals and teachers, our school had a significant number of students reading at grade level at the end of the third grade who were two to three years behind by grade nine.

Not ready for prime time

I once watched an assistant superintendent summarily promote a whole stack of unsuccessful students because they had simply been retained too many times. Many overage and under-credited students arrive at high school because they were “too tall to retain” any longer. They arrive with a history of low achievement, unable to read their textbook, and lacking basic computational skills. Despite that fact that only 20% of eighth graders are on target to be college-, career-, and workplace-ready, high schools are under extreme pressure to prepare students for postsecondary success.

Graduation and Dropouts

High schools are the only schools held to measures of accountability that include graduation rate, dropout rate, end-of-course exams and barrier tests. The fact is that students begin dropping out long before they reach high school.

Range of Learners

Diverse high schools with significant numbers of second-language learners like ours had students with skill levels that ranged from kindergarten through the second year of college. Our elementary principals were surprised to see that our library contained many of the same books as their own.

Size and Complexity

As we go higher in the grades the complexity of the course content and the curriculum increases dramatically. Today’s high school curriculum is extremely complex. Many high schools offer twenty or more AP or IB courses along with dual enrollment classes, CTE programs, and work-study programs. In addition they offer host of standard level courses including electives in the fine and performing arts. High schools tend to be larger because it is impossible to offer the variety of offerings in a smaller school.

Systemic Failure

My last superintendent didn’t particularly like it when I said “Whatever happens in the school system good or bad manifests itself at the high school level.” High schools are at the end of the assembly line. Whatever was or was not corrected along the way surfaces at the high school level. A number of experts have come to believe that weak schools are a result of dysfunctional district leadership and the failure to construct a properly aligned K-12 instructional program. Strong district leadership is a prerequisite to individual school success.

Our current national strategy is to stand at the end of the assembly line and inspect for defects. We are not yet about building quality into the entire K-12 process. We are still stuck in trying to inspect for quality, and that will not render the kind of results that we are looking for. Helping each and every student acquire the solid math and literacy skills they need in order to succeed in every content area is a K-12 issue and cannot be accomplished by remediating large numbers of students who were passed through the grades with glaring skill deficiencies and allowed to languish in failure and mediocrity.

It is true that the work of turning around elementary and middle schools is “potentially easier.” However, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to all students. We cannot afford to ignore millions of high school students simply because they are not the easiest to work with.

Finally, we do know how to turn around high schools. There is now an extensive body of evidence that support to successful turnaround efforts. However, high school turnaround is not easy and it takes time. In most cases, it takes at least three to five years to change the culture of a high school. Arne Duncan was right. When it comes to high school turnaround, there are no silver bullets.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The solution was a blending of one of those highly beneficial “little things” with the proven advantages of increased time and student success.  Mel Riddile in his role as a high school principal was determined to provide his teachers and students more time to prepare for the state of Virginia’s Standards of Learning (SOL) exams that were required for graduation.  It is a story that deserves to be told because it demonstrates the difficulties that can be encountered when trying to implement new ideas in education.  It is a vivid illustration that making such changes requires courageous and determined leadership.

An Arcane System

For decades Virginia has had the quaint belief that the school year should not commence until after Labor Day.  This practice known as “The Kings Dominion Rule” is primarily the result of lobbying by the vacation industry.  This policy created a school year in 2009-10 that began on September 8 and ended on June 24.  The number of scheduled days (180) was similar to many states.  But due to the decision to delay the start of classes until after the first Monday in September, these students were placed at a serious disadvantage. The most glaring discrepancy revolved around the Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) exams.  These tests are strictly administered on dates determined by AP and IB.  Consequently last year any district in the country that began classes two weeks, three weeks or a month prior to September 8, gave every one of their students that much additional class time to prepare for the same competitive test with the ones in Virginia. 

Finding a Better Way

An obvious solution to this disparity is to start school earlier.  The question is how could this be accomplished?  More than a decade ago Mel Riddile began to look for the answer.  In previous years our district had discussed the possibility of requesting an exemption to the “After Labor Day” rule from the state. On at least one occasion they were given the opportunity to do so, but declined.  Thus, it was apparent exceptions could be made and after a bit of research it was discovered that more than 50% of the districts in the state were quietly beginning classes one to two weeks prior to the traditional starting date.  The implications of this discovery went well beyond the AP and IB exams.  The SOL testing program had set testing “windows” each year and beginning school earlier in the year would give students additional time to prepare for those exams as well.  While an extra two weeks of instruction for the advanced students was helpful, ten more school days for students in the core SOL courses could well be the difference between success and failure.  This concept, which would trade two weeks of school that would occur after the testing for two weeks of instruction prior to the exams was greeted with strong enthusiasm from several teachers who were consulted on the idea.  The quest was about to begin.

Hurdle after Hurdle after Hurdle

The plan was not drastic.  It did not add school days to the year—it was to start and end school two weeks earlier.  But in order to make this somewhat modest adjustment Mel was required to jump through numerous educational hoops.  He would have to petition the local school board to receive permission to then get the approval of the faculty and the community to the proposed change.  He would also have to convince the middle school feeder to agree to the same adjustments.  

The explanation to the faculty included the following points.  In addition to the increased class time prior to the exams, it was noted that a large portion of the student body and staff was in the building by that time anyway.  Every fall sport began practices prior to school as did the band, drill team, newspaper staff, etc.  Anyone who walked through the school on a typical August 15 would feel as though the session had already begun.  Moreover, any experienced teacher was well aware of the decline in student performance that occurred every year with the influx of warm weather after the first few weeks of May.  But old, entrenched educational habits do not die easily.  While nearly everyone clearly understood the academic advantages to having a two-week head start, the concept of the school year beginning in mid-August was difficult for some to accept.   Only after endless meetings and long explanations did Mel get the support of the community and staff.  Then he had to travel to the state school board to get their okay.  Eventually they agreed to the idea but only for a limited amount of time.

A Few Setbacks, a Bunch of Gains

The district did not make the transition easy.  They required the school to have the same end dates for grading periods as the other schools.  Thus the first quarter was significantly longer and the last very truncated.   In-service programs prior to the start of the year were not made available to the faculty unless they took leave during the first few weeks of school.  Priority processing for summer school results was not given.  But the overall positive impact was easy to see.

It was quickly apparent that starting school after Labor Day had no magical qualities.  But by the second week the school was running smoothly and the staff began to appreciate the advantages to implementing lesson plans earlier in the year.  Teachers would consistently report covering more curriculum and having more review time than in previous years.  And the fact that the school year ended on June 3 was a bonus.

And Then It Was Gone

There is no way to quantitatively measure the benefits of the two-week early start.  Perhaps the best way to determine the positive impact occurred after Mel had left the school.  The program had been extended several times past the original termination date given by the state.  The new principal, however, was not committed to the idea and her perceived disadvantages were cited on a regular basis.  Even so, the staff was polled on several occasions and each time the vast majority of the votes were in favor of keeping the early start.  But with the loss of Mel’s intensity and tenacity, the concept was scrapped in 2009, ostensibly due to district budget concerns, which were never fully explained.  How this change will affect student success should be very interesting.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Teachers and school leaders across the country are working night and day to improve student performance. Current plans to reform schools often ignore that fact that schools are about more than bricks, mortar, structures, or programs. Schools are about people—students, parents, teachers, administrators, counselors, and community members—and their relationships. These relationships form the culture—attitudes, beliefs, expectations, mindsets—that define a school.

High-performing schools have learned that the foundation of their success rests upon the quality of these relationships. Researchers continually remind us that the number one factor in raising student academic performance is the teacher-student relationship. Schools can have great teachers, quality lesson plans, outstanding leadership, and the best resources, but without high-quality relationships, learning will suffer.

Discussions about school improvement must address strategies to increase personalization. We all want our children to attend schools that are warm, inviting, safe, and orderly, and it is our responsibility to ensure that other peoples’ children have that same opportunity.

However, according to the results of a 2008 national survey, we have work to do:

• Sixty-two percent (62%) of the students surveyed agreed with the statement “School is a welcoming and friendly place.”
• Twenty-nine percent (29%) of the students surveyed said they do not feel comfortable going to the cafeteria for lunch.
• Just under half (49%) of all 6-12 students reported they are proud of their school.
• 33% of students surveyed agreed bullying is a problem in their school.
• Forty-four percent (44%) of those students surveyed believe teachers care about their problems and feelings.

A Free Personalization Resource

The 2008 survey is being updated in 2010 and schools across the country are invited to participate. The Million Voice Project is a public interest initiative that is gathering and analyzing the perceptions of 1 million students, grades 6-12, about school. This student voice project will be the largest single initiative to document and analyze student engagement and to highlight the related variations in academic performance in American schools.  This initiative is being underwritten by the Pearson Foundation, and is being supported by a number of national education organizations including NASSP, CCSSO, NEA, and AASA.

Schools may register between August 16 and December 17. Administration (when students start taking the survey after the school has registered them) begins September 13. Once all of a school’s teachers have administered the survey, the Million Voice School Report will be emailed to the school within three business days.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)