"A dozen experienced Fairfax educators and a state delegate have proposed the Fairfax Leadership Academy; could a charter school in Fairfax actually happen?"--Jay Mathews

Jay Mathews' skepticism may be just the kind of reverse psychology needed to earn approval for the first public charter in Fairfax County (VA), an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C. 

I know Jay and he has a passion for schools that serve the under-served and under-resourced students that the Fairfax Leadership Academy targets. 

A few years ago, we would have referred to the Fairfax Leadership Academy as an "alternative school." Today, we call it a public charter school. If nationally renowned Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (VA) opened today, it would open as a charter school.

I am not a fan of any school that controls the admission and withdrawal of students, skims off the best students, gets rid of low-performers, and then compares its students performance to neighborhood public schools, who serve anyone who shows up at their door. According to the staff, the Fairfax Leadership Academy will take applications, but will only "screen" on the basis of potential transportation issues. After all, this school will be located in the middle of the most congested traffic area in the country, and they don't want students who have to 90-minute commutes each way. It just won't work.

A Proven Formula

Those active in starting this Academy know exactly what they are getting into. They know full well that they will work longer and harder than their colleagues in more resourced schools. They have a proven track record of working with under-served, under-resourced students in what National Geographic Magazine called "the most diverse high school in America." Their school, J.E.B. Stuart High School, was a "national model" for excellence winning recognition as "Model School," a "Breakthrough School," and winning the International Baccalaureate's first Inspiration Award.

Recipe for Success

The Fairfax Leadership will employ best practices that have been proven to level the playing field of under-resourced students, which will dramatically increase the number of students who graduate college and career-ready including:

• Small Learning Communities - 75 students in each grade level
• Increased learning time - A longer school day and a longer school year equivalent to 55 more days in a school year.
• AVID - Advancement through Individual Determination will provide the additional support that these students need in order to handle rigorous college and career prep program
• International Baccalaureate Program
• Service Learning - Each student will be required to complete a community service requirement.
• Collaboration among the staff will shared decision-making and distributed leadership.
  

The Bottom Line

When Albert Shanker first talked about charter schools, he envisioned a school like the Fairfax Leadership Academy--a school that serves the under-served and one that acts as a laboratory for best practices.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:06 PM | Permalink

"To qualify for a national merit scholarship, students in different states have to take the same exam, but they don’t have to get the same scores to win."--Valerie Strauss

We know that it is impossible to compare schools and students in different states based on the results on state tests. For example, the highest performing district in one state had 67% of its student score at "proficient" or above, while one of the schools in another state identified for SIG funds as a "low-performing" school had 82% of its students score at "proficient" or above in reading. In another example, one of the lowest performing high schools in one state, would be among the top performing high schools in ten states.

Now we learn that we also cannot compare National Merit Scholars in different states.

Here are the highlights of Valerie Strauss' piece in the Washington Post, which I have filtered for review by busy school leaders:

3.5 million high school students take the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) as a preparation for the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).

In addition to serving as a practice test and indicator of college readiness, the PSAT is also used as the qualifier for the prestigious National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test.

"About 50,000 students qualify based on their PSAT scores, and that number is whittled down to about 16,000, who become semifinalists (the 34,000 others get letters of commendation). About 8,500 are named finalists, eligible for a scholarship of varying amounts, based on test scores as well as other criteria including academic performance."

However, "the initial cutoff scores separating the possible winners from the definite losers are not the same in each state."

"Students can wind up winning with lower scores than students who didn’t make the cut in their state." For this reason, the University of California system decided to stop funding National Merit Scholarships in favor of other "merit-based" scholarships.

States With Highest Cut Scores: D.C. New Jersey, and Massachusetts

States With Lowest Cut Scores: North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming

National Merit Scholars can live in one state, but go to school in another. The state where the school is located gets the credit. For example, "National Merit winners in the past who have been listed as coming from Washington D.C. go to private schools in the city, but live in Maryland or Virginia."

Cutoff Scores by State

"An unofficial list of cut scores for the class of 2012 assembled by the Web site College Planning Simplified, which provides free college planning advice, shows these."

Alabama 211


Alaska 212


Arizona 213


Arkansas 205


California 221


Colorado 215


Connecticut 220


Delaware 217


District of Columbia 223


Florida 214


Georgia 218


Hawaii 216


Idaho 211


Illinois 216


Indiana 214


Iowa 210


Kansas 214


Kentucky 212


Louisiana 209


Maine 212


Maryland 221


Massachusetts 223


Michigan 210


Minnesota 215


Mississippi 205


Missouri 213


Montana 209


Nebraska 209


Nevada 209


New Hampshire 216


New Jersey 223


New Mexico 210


New York 219


North Carolina 217


North Dakota 204


Ohio 214


Oklahoma 209


Oregon 216


Pennsylvania 215


Rhode Island 213


South Carolina 211


South Dakota 206


Tennessee 214


Texas 219


Utah 208


Vermont 217


Virginia 220


Washington 220


West Virginia 204


Wisconsin 209


Wyoming 204

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:45 AM | Permalink

What are the pros and cons of tracking? That's a question that I am frequently asked as I work with school leaders around the country. Instead of answering the question, I ask them a question in return. What do you mean by tracking? Instead of an immediate reply, I invariably get a confused look?

What is tracking?

There are several different forms of grouping, also known as tracking or leveling:

• "Within-class ability grouping" is typically found in elementary schools and not in high schools. One example might be multi-level reading groups.
• "Between-class grouping" - Students spend most of the day in “high,” “middle,” or “low” classes and use the same or similar curricula supported by the same set of standards. Schools often refer to these between-class groupings as "advanced" and "standard" courses.
• "Formal Tracks or Levels" - Students spend most of the day in ability tracks and use curricula substantially adjusted to their ability levels which are often supported by a differing set of standards and expectations.

Many schools and school systems have already or are actively eliminating the third form of grouping students, a system of "formal tracks or levels," because research has shown that this form of grouping actually harms poor, disadvantaged, under-resourced, and struggling learners.

The second method of grouping students--"between class grouping" has been shown to benefit high-achievers but does not have a negative impact on the performance of low-achievers.

My Take On Grouping

I favor an approach that provides two groupings--standard and advanced. Within those two general groupings, schools should provide tiered interventions, which provide additional learning time and support to ensure student mastery of course content. For example, students enrolled in an "advanced" AP course may need additional learning time in the form of after-school tutoring or additional review sessions (tier 2) in order to master course content. Likewise, students in standard English 9 may need additional after-school tutoring or review (tier 2), while some students may need a reading course (tier 3) in addition to their English class.

Students should be able to self-select into standard or advanced courses. In other words, enrollment in advanced or standard courses should be open to all students based on their identified strengths and weaknesses as well as their interests and motivation. For example, a student could be enrolled in and AP English class, but in a standard Algebra II course.

Courses that fall under the "advanced" label could include courses specifically labeled on a local level as "advanced." These advanced courses might include Advanced Algebra I, pre-IB, pre-AP, or Honors. The "gold standard" of advanced courses is the externally moderated courses such as ACT Quality Core, University of Cambridge International Examinations, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate.

Locally labeled advanced courses should never be offered in competition with externally moderated courses. For example, a high school should never offer an Honors Senior English in competition with AP or IB English.

Why not offer locally labeled honors courses in competition with externally moderated advanced courses?

First, most locally labeled advanced courses are not monitored. They are honors in name only. In some cases, these so-called honors courses are merely a way to segregate students because their parents don't want them in classrooms with "those kids." The teacher generally decides the curricula in these locally labeled advanced courses, and there is little or no consistency from classroom to classroom, from teacher to teacher, or from school to school. Unless there is a defined curriculum, accompanied by common formative and summative assessments, there is no way to ensure that honors courses are any more rigorous than standard courses.

Second, advanced courses are offered for advanced, college-bound students. Some parents may complain that externally moderated, AP or IB, courses are too difficult for their child. Allowing students to choose the less rigorous honors course instead of an AP or IB course deludes parents into believing that we are preparing their child for college when we know that all we are doing is placating them and their child. If a student is college-bound, why wouldn't that student be enrolled in the externally moderated course.

Third, generally speaking most AP and IB courses proceed at half the speed of a college course. What takes a year of high school to complete would be undertaken in one semester in college. True, some colleges award more than one 3-hour credit for some AP science courses. Likewise, universities frequently require additional lab time in science courses and they provide additional credit hours for successful completion of that science course and lab. Here is the essential question. If students cannot succeed in a half-speed course in high school, how will they handle a full-speed course only a few months later in college?

The Bottom Line

• Schools need to "push" students to take a rigorous course of study that prepares them to be college and career-ready.
• Labeling courses as advanced to placate parents is tantamount to malpractice.
• Offering honors courses as an alternative to AP or IB courses at the junior and senior level is a big lie. In no way are honors courses preparing students to do college-level work. The only way that I would agree to such a proposal is that these courses were externally moderated. They would have a standard course description and syllabus with accompanying district-wide common and formative assessments, which would make the whole idea very expensive.
• If we really have the best interests of our students in mind, we would ensure that they were adequately prepared to succeed in the most rigorous course that we could offer them.
• Finally, the Common Core State Standards and the accompanying assessments renders "formal tracks or levels," all but obsolete. The adoption of the Common Core State Standards means just that. We now have one common set of standards, which prepare all students to be college and career-ready, and which all students are expected to meet before leaving high school.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:07 AM | Permalink

In "It's Poverty, Not Stupid" I proved that we should seek to raise the achievement of all students, but that our national focus should be on our poorest, under-resourced schools and students, who are the reason for our "average" international ranking.

The following post includes excerpts from an article by Marcus Pohlman in the Washington Post and by my personal experiences leading two high-poverty schools:

"Those who believe that “great teaching” alone can overcome the effects of living in poverty are underestimating the toll that difficult home lives have on children."

Q: Why do school reformers ignore poverty?

A: If they acknowledge poverty as a factor...

1. They have no one to blame.

2. They themselves might have to take action instead of standing on the sidelines.

"Some school reformers are fond of saying that “great teaching” can overcome the effects of living poverty on children, and that those people (me included) who insist that poverty matters are only supporting the status quo."

Q: What are the affects of poverty on children?

A: Poverty does nothing to help and everything to undermine a child's education:

1. Focus - When survival and finding something to eat become the focus of a child's life, education takes a back seat.

2. Stress - Money problems increase family stress.

3. Hunger - Students come to school hungry and some don't eat from Friday, when they leave school, until Monday, when they return.

4. Health- Poverty leads to poor nutrition and medical care. As a principal, our staff spent a considerable amount of time obtaining eyeglasses and hearing aids for our indigent students.

5. Literacy - Children living in poverty are talked to less and end up with vocabularies that are about half that of middle-class children.

"Research suggests that the first years shape a child’s capacity to learn. Science tells us that it is essential to brain development that babies are spoken to, read to, cuddled, and allowed to engage in physical play. National Institute of Health studies have indicated the foundations necessary for higher learning — working memory, vocabulary, spatial recognition, reasoning, and calculation skills — are set by the time a child reaches puberty."

6. Mobility and Instability - "Children in poverty move from place to place, often several times in a year.  Children “churn,” which means they start at a certain school but will not be there by year’s end. 

7. Lack basic necessities - Under-resourced children are just that, under-resourcesd. They come to school unbathed, inadequately clothed, and without books and supplies.

8. No support system - Frequently, one parent is absent either incarcerated, or otherwise not present. Many under-resourced children are "raised by aunts barely out of their teens, or grandmothers who have watched a family disintegrate from a collective inability to fight the powerful currents of poverty."

9. 9% solution -  "Through the 18th birthday, the average child will spend less than 9 percent of life in school. That leaves most education occurring outside the schoolhouse. A poll of kindergarten teachers showed that their classrooms would improve if all families had access to quality pre-kindergarten programs." 

Strategies 

While educators cannot cure poverty, we can recommend strategies that will create a level playing field so that under-resourced students are provided the resources they need to bring them up to par with their middle class counterparts. 

1. Early Childhood Education - If we know that children in poverty will arrive at school two to three years behind, why do we wait for the train wreck? "The bipartisan New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce has recommended that public education begin at age 3 for American students. And studies show that the best early childhood programs are staffed by teachers with college degrees and early education certification, offer developmentally appropriate education, include a focus on language development and comprehensive services such as meals and health and developmental screenings and encourage parental involvement." 

2. Best Teachers and Principals - Provide incentives for teachers and principals to work in under-resourced schools. The current strategy of "blame and punish" only serves to drive out the most qualified.

3. Funding - Finally, we must acknowledge that it simply costs more to educate some students. We already admit that it costs more to educate special needs and language-learners, why not poor students?

4. Literacy - Reading and writing skills are the great equalizers helping under-resourced students achieve at middle class levels. We know that poor children lack literacy skills, and, therefore, we must provide direct, explicit literacy instruction beginning the day they first arrive at school and every day thereafter.

5. Time - In order to level the playing field, we must provide under-resourced students more time to learn. It's not about ability. These students don't lack ability. They lack resources and supports. Time is the key. If we hold learning time constant, student achievement looks like a bell curve. We need to provide longer school years, after school tutoring and tiered interventions for all students but particularly for children living in poverty.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:42 AM | Permalink

Author Laura Goodrich is always Seeing Red Cars.

"Here's the metaphor: You buy your dream car and it happens to be red. Suddenly you see red cars everywhere you look. Why? Because you're focusing on red cars... (RT @LauraGoodrich: You get more of whatever you focus on!"

Seeing Red Cars has two important messages for school leaders:

1. We get more of what we focus on. Why? Because we are "teleological" beings--we move toward and become like that which we think about and focus on. The problem is that most school leaders don't have a clear vision of what they do want, in part because they spend so much time putting out fires in the present that they don't have time to think about the future.

2. Most people spend more time focusing on what they don't want as opposed to what they do want and as Wayne Dyer says, "We never get enough of what we don't want." The sad truth is that most school leaders have a lot of detail about what they don't want. In other words, they have a clear vision of what they want to avoid. So, if we are focusing on what we don't want, we are moving inexorably toward it. That's precisely how we get stuck in a rut.

Don't believe me. Check it out for yourself. Begin asking people about "what they want." Most will immediately begin telling you what they don't want, which is a clear sign that they are in a "stuck state."

Action Step: Instead, begin talking with your staff about what you do want and the things that you can control. Begin today to develop your vision for every aspect of your school from the cafeteria and hallways to classroom instruction. If you can't picture it, you won't see it!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:55 PM | Permalink

"Innovation without adequate implementation support is like attempting to drive a car without any gasoline in it."--Dean Fixen

In "Some Thoughts on Education Nation," John Merrow declares "enough already" to all the enthusiasm for innovation. "Please give equal time to ‘imitation.’ We have lots of good schools and good programs and good teachers, stuff that can and should be copied."

Merrow might be on the right track when he calls for less innovation and more imitation. However, he misses the point. The problem is that schools are innovating and imitating too much!

All Diets Work

The fact is that very few school improvement initiatives actually work, not because they are not viable, but because they are never implemented. In most cases, schools are not given sufficient time and resources to properly implement what turn out to be multi-phase projects.

Year after year, schools are asked to rush for one latest and greatest innovation to the next. Even before the last initiative is properly or fully implemented, schools are forced to switch gears and move on to the next fad.

Chaos Increases Turnover

The chaos of "flavor-of-the-week" changes frustrates and demoralizes teachers to the point of driving them from the profession. Fully half of all new teachers become frustrated and leave the profession within three to five years, while the veteran teachers and school leaders "left behind" learn to survive and ride out the current wave until the next silver bullet de jour comes along. Ironically, the obsession with change and cosmetic innovation results in everything remaining pretty much the same.

Some of this "change obsession" is due to the extremely high turnover of superintendents and school principals. New leaders are hired because they promise new and better. They believe that they are expected to do things differently.

Churning Leads to Confusion

Another reason for the "change obsession" is the belief that "we aren't working hard unless we are doing something new and innovative every year." I run into this all the time. In fact, even in high-level policy discussions I hear, "but we have to do something different." It doesn't matter what "it" is or if "it" has any chance of success. It just matters that we do something.

The Right Way

Advocates for "responsible change," who seek to change the culture of a school over a period of three to six years, are accused of favoring the status quo. In reality, there is no status quo, unless of course you refer to the constantly shifting sands as the status quo.

Merrow is correct when he says that we need more imitation. We need to do what successful, high-performing schools have always done. These schools collaboratively develop an approach to improvement that is supported by research but customized to the unique DNA of their school and community. High-performing schools determine what their students need in order to succeed and they do it over and over again, day in and day out, year in and year out in every classroom. In other words, successful schools implement with fidelity!

Next: School Improvement: What or How?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:45 AM | Permalink

In a recent webinar for the National High School Center, Brockton High School (MA) Principal, Sue Szachowicz, attributed her school’s success to the purposeful and hard work initiated by the staff.  “Making change takes tenacity, not brilliance,” she said.

Szachowicz "discussed her school’s experiences in planning for and implementing school-wide literacy, which has resulted in dramatic academic gains in student achievement for both Reading and Math.

Sue's 10 Keys to Literacy Success (in my words):

1. Literacy is the key to raising academic performance.
2. Improving student literacy skills requires the involvement of the entire school.
3. Focus on building teacher capacity over time.
4. Identify, clarify, amplify, and model good instructional practices during professional development.
5. School wide instructional practices that are both "defined" and "aligned" benefit all students by providing each student with repeated exposure to research-based practices throughout the school day.
6. Data-informed initiatives ensure that the focus remains on student needs instead of adult "wants."
7. Change takes time, years in fact. Look at a school wide literacy initiative as a long-term process by building layer by layer, year after year.
8. Any long-term initiative should grow and evolve over time. A literacy initiative should look different in year five than it did in year two.
9. Changes and modifications to any initiative must be based on the assessed needs of the students.
10. "Schools cannot wait for teacher buy-in. Results are what convince the staff." If leaders approach a school wide literacy initiative as a long-term process, there is no need to wait for total agreement before beginning nor is there a need to force everyone to be at the same level all at once.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:12 AM | Permalink

Technology and diets have one thing in common. Neither works unless you work them, and, when it comes to school technology, for the most part, we educators are more like dabblers than implementers.

In a recent New York Times article, Matt Richtel put it bluntly. "Schools are spending billions on technology, even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning."

I'm not sure what approach Richtel is talking about. I will be just as blunt. We cannot fairly evaluate something that we have not implemented. We can't say that a diet didn't work if we never tried it. Until every student has his or her own device, we have not fully implemented technology. We are still dabbling around the edges of technology integration.

In fact, we educators are unintentionally doing more harm to the argument for more technology than we are doing any good. Because we are so used to "making do" with less, we are actually doing technology integration a disservice by allowing people like Matt Richtel to believing that we have fully implemented technology in our schools when, in actuality, scarce resources are forcing most schools to tinker around the edges giving lip service to technology integration without the tools needed to make it happen school wide.

Novelty, Nicety, or Necessity?

Twenty years ago, computers where a "novelty" in schools. Teachers would tell students, "We're going to the computer lab tomorrow." A few innovative teachers were willing to take a risk to use computers and technology as a "special" part of the learning experience in their course.

Since then, technology and computers have evolved to "nicety" status. Schools have both fixed and portable computer labs, but, in general, students don't use computers in most classes on a daily basis. Computers are "nice," but not a integral part of the teaching-learning experience. In other words, we can do without them.

I have even gone into schools where students did have their own laptop and I would see signs on the classroom doors "bring your laptops today." I remarked to one administrator that when those signs disappear, you will know that you have moved from "nicety" to "necessity."

In the "necessity" stage, computers are just as essential as paper and pencil used to be. I knew that we had reached the "necessity" stage when our teachers started complaining that the repair desk "was not turning around laptops fast enough, and my students can't participate without their laptop. They are lost without them!"

Learning Is a 24/7 Process

Learning doesn't stop when the students leave the classroom. If the students are denied access to the resources they used in the classroom, how can they be expected to carry on with the learning process? In most schools, students share computers or they have the use of a computer. In all but a handful of schools across country, we simply aren't there yet. Until each student has his or her own device 24/7, we haven't fully implemented technology.

Think about it! What would the classroom be like if we had no paper and not enough pencils or pens to go around? We already know. Students would be writing on pieces of slate with chunks of chalk. Can you imagine a teachers wheeling a cart into a classroom once or twice a week and telling students, "come up and pick up your pencil and paper?"

How extensive would your personal use of technology be if you had to share a computer with two or three other people in your office? My guess is that you would be years behind where you are right now. I know that I would. The fact is that, when it comes to adults, we know that they need their own computing device. Why not our students?

I have believed for a long time that, until each student has his or her own computing device, we have not fully implemented technology and we cannot claim to be serious about integrating technology into instruction. Going from a high school with an excellent computer to student ratio that took years to achieve, my move to a school in which every student had a laptop confirmed for me that my dreams of a paperless classroom and 24/7 learning could be realized.

For example, our district had made a sizeable investment in a well-known content management system (CMS). I was committed to having all our teachers trained and actively using the system. After going to my new school, which had a one-to-one initiative, I realized that my previous efforts were window dressing. Not until I personally witnessed what we could do with a CMS when every student had his or her device, did I realize what a waste of time my efforts were.

All means all, not most!

As long as fixed or portable computer labs are the best that we can do, technology will be a "novelty" or a "nicety." Only when every student has a personal computing device will technology become a necessity. Until then technology integration is only an experiment, and a partial experiment at that.

To Matt Richtel, I say give every student his or her own device and give us three to five years to fully implement tem and to change the culture of the classroom, then evaluate technology in the schools.

Next: Is BYOD the answer?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:46 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In an effort to close their minority achievement gap, Montgomery County (MD) Public Schools (MCPS) like many other school systems has turned to Disneyland for educational advice.  According to an article in the Washington Post:

”In their ongoing quest to eliminate academic achievement gaps, Montgomery County educators are seeking help from the Magic Kingdom.

“It is not enough, they realized, to spend more on poor children or to promote college-level classes for all if school employees are not fully committed to the cause.

“Maryland’s largest school system sent a delegation to Disney’s complex in Orlando a few years ago for a lesson in motivating employees from a company that specializes in making dreams come true.”

And what advice did this considerable investment of time and money obtain?

“‘People need a reason to come to work. At Disney, we teach our employees the first day that we are here to create happiness,’ said Bruce Jones, programming director for the Disney Institute, which coaches outsiders in the entertainment giant’s business methods. ‘What we talk about with educators is, ‘Let’s not forget why we got into this: These are real kids.’”

No wonder the place is called “Fantasyland”.  Rest assured, any teacher who has stood in front of a classroom filled to overflowing with students fresh from more than two months of summer vacation is well aware that there are “real kids” sitting in those chairs.  And, unfortunately, learning how to derive the quadratic formula does not always equate into “happiness”.

Outside advice is not all bad

Utilizing the thoughts of non-educators can be beneficial.  In previous posts, I have quoted Vince Lombardi, Bill Gates and Mark Twain among others.  What is troubling about the MCPS adventure in the Magic Kingdom is the actual advice being rendered.  While any business as successful as Disney has important lessons to share, the goals of education and those of an amusement park do not significantly overlap.  In the Disney orientation, which is called “Transitions” there is a review of the company history and a screening of clips of old Disney movies, which have reportedly brought many new employees to tears.   Now MCPS has its own orientation for new personnel which is also being titled “Transitions” and includes a history of the county, films about outstanding employees and concludes as a virtual revival meeting.  According to the Post:

“During one session in Rockville on a muggy August afternoon, three dozen recently hired teachers and bus drivers were introduced to their new employer’s vision statement in evangelical call-and-response fashion.

“A high-quality education is a fundamental right for who?” asked a high-energy facilitator. “Every child,” came the muffled response. “For WHO?” the call came again. “Every child,” the group said, a little louder.

“That’s right,” the facilitator said. “Every child.”

While there were no reports of widespread weeping among the participants, based upon my own experiences with such activities it would appear to be a possibility – and not in a good way.

The minority achievement gap is not a fairy tale

All of these machinations are the result of persistently lower academic performances by the district’s Hispanics and African-Americans when compared to Caucasians and Asians.  It is a problem that has existed for decades.  The county’s educational leaders have decided that the root cause of the disparity is low expectations on the part of teachers when dealing with these under performing groups.  It would appear that this latest approach by MCPS is just another attempt at finding an overly simplified answer to a very complex question.  If the significant differences in student performances between certain groups were a statistical blip on the educational radar screen much like an excessively hot summer, it could be explained away by employee incompetence or ignorance.  But these are entrenched problems that have been consistently in place for years.  Instead of soliciting the advice of a successful movie studio, schools need to look for fundamental structural changes that could actually directly address the achievement gap.

Not as entertaining as the seven dwarfs but…

From the point of view of an educator here are seven ways to attack the minority achievement gap:

Improve hiring practices.  Create a process for acquiring new personnel that would determine the quality of their work before they stand in front of a classroom.  Invest the time and resources necessary to make the interviewing of candidates a multi-tiered procedure that would accurately determine the best applicants.

Improve the evaluation process.  Hire professional evaluators who would not only establish the strengths and weaknesses of each staff member, they would have the tools necessary to improve the individuals being observed.

Create an effective termination policy.  Most poor teachers are failures with all of their students not just the ones at-risk.  However, those weaker students are often the most affected by poor teaching.  Schools must institute policies that would allow them to remove under-performing personnel in a timely manner.

Hire statisticians to determine root causes of low academic performances.  Instead of pulling out charts that demonstrate the obvious—certain groups are continually under-performing—do the research necessary to find out the fundamental reasons for these problems.  On numerous occasions it has been clearly demonstrated that low scores are far more about poverty than they are race based.

Encourage underrepresented minorities to take more challenging courses.  Sometimes students need a little encouragement; other times they require a bit of a push.  Establish a school environment where counselors and teachers are continually setting high standards for all students.

Offer incentives to work in low-income schools.  In the accountability-based schools of 2011 it is increasingly difficult to entice quality educators to work in the most difficult schools.  Offer higher pay, more creativity and leadership roles to outstanding personnel to perform in buildings with the greatest need.

Better prepare new teachers.  Instead of revival meetings give meaningful training.  Establish “teaching” high schools much like physicians have “teaching” hospitals and allow new educators to learn their craft appropriately.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:14 PM | Permalink

A while back, I was having a conversation with a member of our school community lamenting the fact that no one every bothered to check to see if the school programs in place were actually working for our neediest students. She looked at me quizzically and replied, "Mel, you don't get it. This is the South. Here it's about appearances. It's not about if something works. It's about saying that we are doing something."

Activity Does Not Equal Success

I interpreted her statement to mean that "activity equals success." Fortunately or unfortunately that type of thinking is not confined to the southern part of the country. Truth be told, the "all show, no go" approach to education has been going on for too long in too many places.

For example, according to a report, some California middle schools have close to one hundred percent of their 8th graders taking Algebra. You may recall that the previous Governor of California thought it would be a good idea to mandate that all 8th graders be enrolled in Algebra 1 or at least a course that was labeled Algebra 1. It didn't matter if the 8th graders were prepared or ready for Algebra1. "More and more eighth-graders in California are taking algebra I or higher, regardless of whether they are ready for it." The residents of California could now sleep soundly knowing that no 8th grader was being denied the opportunity to enroll in Algebra.

The report compares affluent Manhattan Beach with an 8th grade Algebra enrollment of 44% to much less affluent Lennox with a participation rate of 94% and an embarrassingly low proficiency rate of 27%. The 44% participation rate doesn't concern John Jackson, principal of Manhattan Beach Middle School. "Our job is to get them ready for high school, and that's what we do really well," he said. Bingo! Principal Jackson's mission is to help students learn so that they will succeed in high school not to fill seats with underprepared students. What a novel idea!

According to researcher Tom Loveless, "the comparison of Manhattan Beach and Lennox mirrors an odd trend that is happening statewide. While the overall rate of eighth-graders taking algebra is skyrocketing, the change is most dramatic among low-income school districts serving disadvantaged minorities."

"According to Loveless, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, and a critic of California's algebra rush, "If you're a student from a disadvantaged background - and are African-American or Hispanic - you are more likely to be placed in an algebra class in eighth grade than if you are a white suburban kid in an affluent district. The schools in the suburbs still have standards for entrants."

Loveless' research uncovered some other interesting findings:

- In the bottom 10th percentile of U.S. eighth-graders in mathematics about a third of the low scorers on the National Assessment of Educational Progress were enrolled in algebra I or higher.

- "A large percentage (of algebra I completers) is functioning at the second- to third-grade level. For instance, they don't know fractions."

- A third of students who performed poorly in regular seventh-grade math were nonetheless placed into algebra I in eighth grade, "with almost no chance for success."

- The study concluded that while taking algebra in eighth grade serves the most prepared students well, it also has set many students up to fail.

I am a big proponent of students taking Algebra in the 8th grade. I spent two years in my last school district campaigning for a doubling of the number of 8th graders taking Algebra. To accomplish this, I proposed that our district align the math curriculum K-7 so that by design all students would be prepared to succeed with a grade of C or higher, in Algebra I in grade 8. At the time, we had only 20% of our 8th graders taking Algebra, which was one-half the average participation rate of the surrounding school systems--40%.  While I knew that an aligned curriculum would include all students in our efforts to prepare them for Algebra, I knew that not all would, in fact, be ready. However, I believed that we had a moral and ethical responsibility to give all students the same chance at readiness. Previously, only students in the Talented and Gifted (TAG) program were enrolled in a curriculum designed to prepare them for Algebra 1 in grade 8.

Now, it is a long way from 40% to 100% even in one of the most affluent regions of the country. I knew that successful, and I emphasize successful, completion of Algebra in grade 8 is one of the best indicators of college success and graduation. Notice that I didn't say college admission. I said college graduation.

In addition, I know that students who take at least one math course beyond Algebra II score significantly higher on college admission tests, and, therefore, have a better chance of gaining admission to the more competitive colleges and universities.

I have high expectations for all students. I want all students to be college and workplace-ready upon graduation from high school. I am for increased rigor. I strongly favor a standards-based, mastery learning approach. However, I am not for filling seats so that I can brag about how many students are enrolled in a specific course.

Throw them in the water and see if they can swim

The approach now being taken with 8th graders and Algebra I is the same approach that many high schools took and are taking to increasing enrollment in Advanced Placement courses. Don't undertake the years of hard work it takes to build math and literacy skills so as to prepare students to succeed in these courses. Just assign students to the courses and brag about your participation rate. If and when you are questioned about low passing rates, blame the teachers. This convoluted thinking has resulted in a disastrously low national pass rate on AP exams of 15.9% as well as many frustrated and demoralized teachers.

Access without excellence is malpractice!

To me it matters that these students succeed in these courses because I believe in them. They have the ability. It is our job to teach them. When they fail, it undermines their confidence. Also, within a few short months, these students will be enrolled in college courses that are moving at twice the speed of a high school AP course. If they can't handle half speed courses, how will they handle full speed?

The Bottom Line

School leaders should seek to increase enrollment in Algebra I and all higher-level courses. However, let's do it the right way by building the pipeline. The development of literacy and math skills is a PreK-12 issue. That means that we need to have high expectations and the will to do the hard work of building literacy and math skills from day one. Simply placing students in courses regardless of their readiness level is akin to malpractice. No longer is it our job to sort students. It is our responsibility to raise them up to higher levels. Whatever it takes!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:21 PM | Permalink

"No one is arguing we shouldn't use technology in education anymore. The question is how."--Chris Lehmann, ISTE 2011

Education Week reports that data released by Project Tomorrow, the Software and Information Industry Association, and technology company CDW-G reveals a "perception gap" or "disconnect" between educators and students and between school-based staff and district staff.

Better But Not There Yet

"School districts are becoming more sophisticated in their approach to implementing online education but are still struggling to meet the increasing need and desire of students to learn online."

More Taking Online Courses

The proportion of high school students who had taken an online course as of last fall tripled from fall 2008, from 10 percent to 30 percent.

Online Courses Becoming Mainstream

Two in five students believe online classes are an essential component of education and administrators' concerns about funding online courses are fading. On the other hand, concerns about course quality are rising.

Teachers: No thanks to online learning

26 percent of teachers surveyed expressed interest in diving into online teaching if they hadn't already done so.

Who is the "cork in the bottle?"

"District-level administrators were found to be more supportive of online learning than on-campus principals were. The district-level superintendents or administrators are much more visionary thinking [about] what the long-term implications are. Principals are more narrowly focused on living right now, today, and dealing with today's issues."

Can't Keep Up

"Educators don't feel as if they are keeping up with technology, even if their actions would appear to show otherwise. "The more they do, the more they're aware of how much more they should be doing."

Up-to-date Classroom

What constitutes a "21st Century Classroom? "Any Internet connection, teacher computing device, and LCD projector are characteristics of a modern classroom."

Unsatisfied Students

64 percent of IT administrators rated their districts' technology as "cutting edge," only 45 percent of faculty members and 39 percent of students reported being satisfied with their classroom technology.

A Thought: The Common Core Assessments will involve extensive use of technology. They will all be computer and Internet-based. We have a lot of work to do before 2014-15.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:28 AM | Permalink

Are we in the midst of a “major shift in educator’s opinion regarding technology as an education tool?”

Classroom Use Increases

According to a new survey of 294,399 K-12 students, 42,267 parents, 35,525 teachers, 2,125 librarians, 3,578 school or district administrators, and 1,391 technology leaders, “the number of educators incorporating technology such as podcasts and videos into their lessons has increased 50% since 2008.

Personal Use Increases

The Project Tomorrow survey also found that the use of personal technology by educators is on the rise, with many more teachers using smartphones and social-networking tools such as Facebook.”

The latest Speak Up Survey reveals the following:

- More than twice as many educators have a personal smart phone today than in 2008

- A 33 percent increase in the number of teachers who are active Facebook users.

- A 50 percent increase of teachers using podcasts and videos as part of their classroom instruction.

My Take

The survey sends a clear message to those who have been hanging on to old modes of communication and old technologies: It may be time to make a shift!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:35 AM | Permalink

The Teacher Leader viewed hiring as his most important responsibility. Sadly, many schools never allow teacher leaders the opportunity to step up and share ownership of their school. When it comes to the important decisions like hiring and scheduling, teacher are too often shut out.

Leaders Grow Leaders

High-performing schools understand that 'hiring the right people and putting them in the right seats on the bus' is critical to laying a solid foundation for continuous school improvement. When asked about the importance of hiring teachers, most school leaders put it at the top of their list. How they deal with hiring new staff is a dead giveaway to their willingness to share decision-making and to distribute leadership and tells us just how collaborative the school really is.

Behavior Doesn't Lie

The real test of a school leader is what the leader does when the pressure is on. How does that leader deal with the critical issues like hiring? Every school leader I know believes that they have a collaborative school environment, but many view hiring as their purview and under their total control.

Accountability Demands Involvement

I love the Bill Parcell's quote, "If you want me to cook the meal, let me shop for the groceries." If we want teachers to hold each other accountable for student achievement, we are going to have to give up our need to control. Notice that I did not mention holding teachers accountable. Holding teachers accountable is about control. High-performing schools seek cooperation not control. They practice shared decision-making, which results in shared responsibility and shared ownership.

If we want voluntary cooperation, we must lead as though we are seeking cooperation. If we want teachers to take ownership, we must treat them as co-owners who have a part in making the key decisions that affect them on a daily basis.

Our teachers always expected more of themselves that anyone ever would. No one could ever compel our teachers to work as hard or care as much as they did.

Yes, it is a scary proposition for a school leader, whose head is on the chopping block every day, to give up control of the destiny of the school. However, I learned from experience that there were tremendous benefits to involving teachers in the hiring process:

They took more time. For me, it was about filling a position. For our teachers, it was about finding the right person, the right fit. Our teachers understood the skills and background knowledge required of the applicant as well as how the prospective teacher would fit into their team.

Better decisions - Our teachers pooled their collective experience and multiple intelligences to make better decisions, and they did.

Ownership - Teachers took ownership of the new hire, because they made the selection. They were invested in the new teacher's success and they did everything possible to help.

Our teachers took hiring personally. Listen to how The Teacher Leader approached hiring process.

"I approached the process as an intense form of competition. In a manner similar to college athletic recruiting or drafting in professional sports, the procedure consisted of carefully studying applications to locate the best candidates, an extensive interviewing process to narrow the focus and then an aggressive recruiting campaign to convince them to become a part of our math team.  I was also aware of the fact that not all of those other schools were as concerned with the endeavor. Hiring is recruiting! We believed that the interview went in both directions. We were interviewing the applicant and the applicants were deciding if they wanted to work in our school."

I often heard from applicants that our school was the only school to talk about what the school could do for them. 'All the other schools were only interested in what I could do for them.' High-performing schools tell applicants what they can do for them. They sell the school and the benefits of working there. They take pride in the school and in their team.

The Bottom Line

Do you have the courage to let go of your illusion of control over the hiring process? Are you willing to trust your staff?

Remember what the Gates survey of teachers found. Teachers most want supportive leadership. How a school leader handles the hiring process goes a long way to defining how supportive that leader really is. Keep in mind that when leadership is distributed throughout the school, we find a much more teacher-friendly school culture.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:39 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell is the latest political leader to create a framework for funding merit pay for teachers.  In this plan the state would allot $3 million to selected schools throughout the Commonwealth.  The goal is to populate underachieving schools with outstanding educators.  However, despite the expectation of extremely tight budgets in the coming year, a number of districts intend to reject this offer.  This negative reception demonstrates the difficulty in finding the best approach to utilizing pay incentives to improve student performance.

The latest attempt

In a published statement Gov. McDonnell said, “The funding available for performance pay represents an opportunity to provide meaningful incentives and rewards for exemplary teachers in a significant number of Virginia schools.”

The program targets 169 schools throughout the state which have been designated as “hard to staff”.   To receive the funding districts would have to implement a merit-pay plan based on a new teacher evaluation system created by state officials which emphasizes student performance on end-of-course standardized tests. 

Not surprisingly teacher unions oppose the effort.  Kitty Boitnott, president of the Virginia Education Association responded, “Paying teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools is one thing, but it’s totally different to allocate pay based on how students do on an SOL (Virginia’s standardized exam) on a given day in a given year.”  A larger concern has been the specific schools designated for the program.  Both Arlington and Loudon County spokespersons have expressed serious disagreement with these choices.  “They’ve listed five of our schools, and none of them are difficult to staff,” said Wayde Byard, a spokesman for the Loudoun County school system.  Meanwhile Linda Erdos of Arlington County noted, “We’re not really sure how these schools got on the list rather than others.”  She added that schools that would appear to be more appropriate were omitted.  Many of the ones chosen by the state were considered successful by local officials. 

Use money to reward not to motivate

There is little doubt that in order to improve the schools in Virginia and elsewhere the key component is hiring and retaining the best teachers to work with the most challenging students.  But the method being suggested by Virginia appears misguided.   The key to merit pay is establishing a plan that will actually create better teaching staffs.  Viewing a bonus as an incentive for a teacher to work more effectively demonstrates a lack of understanding of the forces that drive the most successful classroom instructors.  Great teachers are not primarily motivated by finances; their greatest satisfaction results from assisting students to attain academic success.  Thus, the proper timing for monetary rewards should be given after educators have demonstrated their excellence in the classroom.

Beginning the process by targeting the most unsuccessful schools may be a waste of limited funds as well.  A better approach to the problems that Virginia is trying to remedy would be to focus on the schools that are outperforming expectations.  My former school had every possible excuse to fail.  It had the highest free and reduced lunch rate in the district as well as the largest ELL population and the most mobility.  Despite these demographic disadvantages, based on standardized tests, it outperformed 50% of the more affluent schools in the system.  Using this as a model, perhaps a better use of financial rewards would be to offer them to teachers and administrators who have proven their skills in similar situations in return for moving to less successful schools.  However, it is critical that such personnel shifts also be accompanied by a mandate that these individuals are given significant influence in the policies and practices in their new schools.  This combination of monetary incentives and the ability to have meaningful input in creating a positive learning environment would serve as a powerful lure for outstanding educators.   These are the individuals who should be the focus of any merit pay initiative.

There may be a better way

Another district in Virginia is proceeding with its own plan.  Beginning in 2011-2012 Prince William County will introduce an $11.1 million merit pay program.  While it still targets the poorest schools, it does offer an interesting twist—the awards are based on the overall performance of schools, not individual teachers.   Such an approach would create more of a team spirit within a faculty as bonuses would be determined by the entire student body rather than each individual teacher.  

However, I believe one additional step could be taken to make the process even more positive.  I have previously discussed the concept of “merit pay” for overachieving schools.

“If a school’s faculty is among the top scorers in the district, factoring in all the variables about the various schools in the system, then the school is given a reward.  It could be in the form of extra staffing (lower class sizes), better resources, or improved technology in addition to the implicit recognition.  This system would not be designed to punish affluent schools.  As demonstrated in an earlier piece (Time to Turn Talk into Action) a relatively simple mathematical equation can be constructed that will acknowledge success at all types of schools.

Recognition of ‘merit’ whether in actual dollars or in the clear and concrete knowledge that their talents are both documented and appreciated is critical to the morale and self-confidence of our best educators.  By incorporating a quantitative, consistent evaluation with financial rewards for outstanding teachers and schools, such an outcome is possible.” 

It may not be perfect but it could be a start.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:52 AM | Permalink

"As a man thinketh in his heart so is he." James Allen

Here is the ultimate essential question posed in a New York Times article titled When Math Makes Sense (To Everyone): To what degree are our beliefs about children’s abilities determined by the results of our current education system?

The article was a follow-up to a previous piece on Jump Math's founder John Mighton, who expressed some interesting viewpoints on education and math instruction.

“Our belief in hierarchies is producing the hierarchies.” In other words, our belief that some people are naturally better than others in some areas produces an education system characterized by hierarchies designed to sort students. Formalized academic tracks would be the most extreme example of these formalized hierarchies. A math curriculum gamed to ensure that only "gifted" students could take Algebra in eighth grade, and thus, prevents many capable students from taking calculus in high school, would be a less obvious, but just as insidious, example.

Using Mighton as a case in point, the article postulates that we may not know what we are capable of achieving. "As a youth, he (Mighton) was fascinated by math, but he wasn’t a natural. He almost failed his first calculus course. But he trained himself to break down complicated tasks and practice them until things that initially confused him became second nature. He went on to do a Ph.D in mathematics."

"Research on experts – whether in chess, cello or computer programming – indicates that natural ability is less a predictor of success than effort and deliberate practice. A big part of what we call “giftedness” is “task commitment” – and that can be encouraged."

My Take

Our beliefs act as our auto-pilot that drives our behavior. What we believe about the capabilities of students to learn and teachers to teach directly impact the approaches we take. We can quickly discover what teachers and schools believe about students by examining four areas, which gives us insight into both a teacher's and a school's auto-pilot:

1. Grading - A teacher's philosophy of grading reflects the teacher's beliefs about human nature and how students are motivated. In fact, one of my favorite interview questions for prospective teachers was to ask about their philosophy of grading. Their response told us more about them as a person and as a future staff member than just about any other question we asked.

Teachers who believe that work and effort predict student success use grades as a means of providing both feedback and encouragement to their students. Grades are viewed as a byproduct of learning. Their students understand that their grades are a reflection of their work and effort and that they have the power to change them if they choose to work hard enough and to put in the time needed to master the concept. These teachers view student learning as feedback on their teaching and they use that feedback to guide their instruction, to focus review efforts, and to target remediation, because in their classroom, the only way a student can fail is if the student either quits of gives up. Failure is not an option. Their students typically say that their teacher will not allow them to fail. They never give up on any student. These teachers often used standards-based grading practices that emphasize mastery. They believe that learning time is relevant and the outcomes and mastery is an absolute.

Conversely, teachers who believe that grades are a reflection of student ability, use grades as rewards and punishment and as a weapon hoping that the fear of failure will motivate students to do better. Instead of using student learning as feedback on their teaching, they place the blame for poor performance on the students. Review and remediation are not a priority for ability-driven teachers. If a student is doing poorly in their class it is because they "didn't do their homework," or they "don't belong" in the class.

Schools tend to take on one of these two belief systems or mindsets. They either believe that all students, given time and effort, can achieve to high levels or they believe that students are either born with "it" or they are not, and no amount of work or effort will raise them to high levels of achievement.

The school that believes in work and effort seeks to reduce course failures and to increase the number of students taking higher-level courses through enhancing their skills. Schools who believe that ability predicts performance resist efforts to reduce course failure or to encourage more students to take higher-level courses because they fear that they will have to "water-down" the courses to help students succeed in those courses.

2. Interventions - Teachers who view ability as the best predictor of success see no need to provide interventions because failure is viewed as a natural consequence. They believe that it is their responsibility to sort students and to weed out the capable from the less capable.

Teachers who believe that work and effort predict academic success view interventions as a natural part of their teaching and helping to raise student achievement. These teachers simply refuse to give up on students.

Ability-driven schools often have no 3. Math, or 4. Reading interventions for struggling students. When offering interventions for struggling learners, ability-driven schools do so begrudgingly. Conversely, schools that believe that time, work, and effort are the best predictors of student achievement, have numerous interventions in both 3. Math, and 4. Reading for students and some even go as far as to require students to attend extra sessions.

Final Take

The beliefs, attitudes, and expectations of teachers combine to form a collective mindset or school culture, which drives the behavior of individual teachers and schools alike. Four specific areas provide insight into those beliefs and mindsets--grading, interventions, math, reading. How teachers and schools view and address these issues are strong indicators of the school's culture.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:39 AM | Permalink

I frequently use Reagan National Airport and my flight occasionally lands late at night. So, the story about two planes landing while the one and only air traffic controller on duty slept, caught my attention. Like many others, I was shocked to learn that more than a few airports, some of them considered major hubs, routinely schedule only one controller on duty.

My thoughts immediately turned to a recent airport experience. I was in an unnamed airport in a major city waiting in a long security line. For the sake of fairness, I must admit that, in most airports, security has gotten better in the past year. In this case, the line was getting longer and longer, yet there was only one security station screening passengers. I thought to myself, surely they will open more lines. I was wrong.

I counted thirteen uniformed TSA employees standing idle while they watched passengers screening through one checkpoint. It reminded me of when I was a kid listening to the adults joke about the state road crews. "One has a shovel or a broom and five others are watching."

I then imagined a scenario in which the one traffic controller on duty was sleeping while downstairs thirteen TSA employees observed one security checkpoint. Talk about misplaced priorities.

In my mind, landing planes takes priority over confiscating hair gel. Having more than one air traffic controllers on duty at a time is a non-negotiable. Clearly, some airports are majoring in the minors.

School leaders can use the misplaced priorities of our airports as a learning experience. Truth be told, most schools don't consistently do the things that improve student performance. We must decide on our priorities--two, no more than three, areas of focus. Next, we must say no to everything else. Our focus must be non-negotiable. Finally, we must continue until we have both mastered our priorities and accomplished our goals and objectives.

Ask yourself. What are our "must do's?" What are our "need to do's? What are our "nice to do's? In other words, what "must" we do every day in every classroom throughout our school in order to raise student performance? Once we determine our priorities, we must resolve to do those things with fidelity. We must do them consistently day in and day out, and we must do them over time, in many cases, for years.

Focus: Clear and Simple

For ten years, our school had a clear and simple focus. Note, I didn't use the word "easy," because there is nothing easy about improving student attendance and literacy skills. That is not to say that those were the only things we did. We totally revamped our approach to math, integrated technology, enhanced our ESL program, reduced suspensions, changed our school calendar to year-round, began mandatory after-school tutoring for any student with a "D" or "F" in a core academic subject, and list goes on and on.

If you asked our teachers about our school improvement plan, they would respond, "R-A-G-S to Riches"--Reading plus Attendance means better Grades and a Safe school." In other words, if we improved student literacy skills (Reading) and raised Attendance, student performance would improve (Grades) and discipline referrals and suspensions would go down (Safe). Here's the key. For almost a decade, our plan never changed. While we continually enhanced our strategies, our focus never changed. We never waivered.

The Secrets of High-Performing Schools

High-performing schools consistently do what other schools do not. No misplaced priorities here. No majoring in the minors either. High-performing schools have fewer priorities and they are obsessed with reaching their goals. At the recent NASSP School Showcase the presentations made by several schools made it crystal clear to me that schools serving large numbers of under-resourced students must have a student-focused obsession, and that obsession must relate to the specific needs of the population that the school serves.

The three schools all served under-resourced students. However, the three high schools varied in size, had very different demographics, and were located in states with very different economics and education policies. The context in which these schools operated was about as different as they could possibly be.

Although they were very different in appearance, the three schools had a lot in common. They each had a laser-like focus on student success that bordered on an obsession. In fact, these three schools were so obsessed with student success that they were willing to overcome any obstacle that got in their way.

Literacy: Brockton High School (MA) is a large (4,350) urban high school that has focused on raising the literacy--reading, writing, thinking, discussing--levels of ALL students, particularly its large ELL population. Principal, Susan Szachowicz, and a "handful of fellow teachers" organized a school wide campaign that brought reading and writing lessons into every class in all subjects, including gym. According to a New York Times article, Brockton's literacy-for-all success has defied the "small is better orthodoxy" proving that any school can beat the odds and raise student performance.

Attendance: The audience turned to each other with looks of disbelief when the staff of Arroyo High School (CA) posted their three-year attendance figures. Arroyo's average daily attendance was well over 96%. For a large, high-poverty, high minority, urban high school, 96% is phenomenal. However, I could see the enthusiasm abate as the staff spent about twenty minutes describing all the initiatives the school used to improve attendance. As I have emphasized over and over again, improving student attendance is all about hard work and will power, and the Arroyo staff have plenty of both. Arroyo's success formula is simple. Get the students to attend school every day and make sure that the students succeed.

Course Failure: The presentation began with a simple but very effective slide that pointed out that, over a three-year period, Barberton (OH) High School had reduced course failures from over 2,500 to 350. The staff at Barberton must have read Bob Balfanz's dropout research that points out that course failure is one of the best indicators of dropping out of school. Admittedly, a school could reduce failures by simply lowering standards. This was not the case at Barberton, where the focus was clear and no obstacle too big to overcome. The staff used small learning communities, flexible scheduling, a unique master schedule, student-led conferences, and an advisory program among other strategies to significantly improve student performance.

The Bottom Line for School Leaders

We simply cannot afford to waste time, money, and effort on programs and strategies that will not improve our schools. Schools cannot have fifteen priorities and do them well. The more we try to do, the more we spread out and dissipate our effort. Focus is power! The reality is that "we do more when we do less." Saying no is much harder than saying yes to new initiatives, but saying no is the right thing, the courageous thing to do. Resolve today to stop majoring in the minors! Become obsessed with your priorities.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:40 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The students in the 11^th grade English class were given an assignment that would have been impossible to complete in February, 2006.  They were told to respond to a reading based on the work of Ernest Hemingway.  While the literature being studied was available well before 2006, the method of delivering the homework was not.  The students in this class had to send in the assignment using Twitter and as prescribed on that site, keep their responses to 140 characters.

Some positive responses

The teacher who made this assignment is very enthusiastic about the outcomes.  “Part of my job is to get the students engaged,” she related. “It’s easier to do that if I can link the homework to Twitter and Facebook. The hope is that when it’s time for the AP exam, what started as a novelty will translate into a real skill.”

Her students were equally positive.   One describe her writing as more efficient, declarative, even staccato. “It was a total breakthrough,” she said.  Some sentiments match precisely with the thoughts expressed in a recent Mel Riddile post—concise writing equals better writing.

Other teachers have embraced additional aspects of social networks for instruction using a powerful combination of Facebook and the Canterbury Tales to study Chaucer’s work.   One senior English student was so excited by such an assignment she said, “I had to write interests and status updates for the friar in the story — he was like a total frat guy.” She then added, “It’s the kind of assignment I found interesting because I could relate to it.”

Other Facebook groups have been formed to relay information, have discussions and encourage inter-active study. 

Making it relevant

I found that one of the greatest obstacles in teaching mathematics was the abstract nature of the curriculum.  It soon became clear that academic success increased significantly by making the subject more applicable to a student’s life experiences.  In my own classroom we would weave topics such as probability, parametric motions and sequences and series to events familiar to the students.  The mathematics of television shows like “CSI”, price selection in clothing, and calculating successful field goal attempts would be studied at length. 

The English teachers in this article are doing the same.  They are bringing 14th century literature to life using 21st century technology.  Not surprisingly, many of the students have embraced this new approach.

Not everyone is convinced

In sharp contrast to the enthusiasm of the teachers and students, many educational policy makers are not quite ready to endorse the use of Twitter and Facebook.  Many states, including Virginia, are concerned with one of the more highly publicized, negative aspects of social networks - sexual predators.   

Education officials in that state are primarily concerned with the possibilities that this approach will give potential offenders greater access to students.   In the past decade the state has averaged more than a dozen cases per year of inappropriate relationships between teachers and students.  According to Virginia Department of Education spokesman Charles Pyle, the “vast majority” of those cases included texting and other forms of digital communication.

Some people do not see a direct correlation.  “It’s not about the technology, it’s about how it’s used, about acceptable behaviors,” said Kathy L. Smith, chairwoman of the Fairfax County (Virginia) School Board. “Somebody who wants to relate in that way is going to find a way to do it.”

No one, of course, would take the potential of sexual misconduct lightly.  But the larger question is whether using these technologies in the classroom would contribute to any increase in such behavior.  The reality is that adolescents in huge numbers are already engaged in significant activity on these sites.  Demonstrating a positive and responsible utilization of these tools may send a message that could elevate their personal adventures on the web.  There would be no guarantees of such an outcome but the potential for increased academic success must also be considered.  

High school students live in their own unique world of social networking, video games, homecoming floats and YouTube.  The more connections that educators can make between that universe and education the more likely it would be that the message of the importance of academic success will be received.  Ignoring the social network will not make it disappear and will only serve to widen the cultural gap between teachers and students.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:52 AM | Permalink

In a recent public appearance a prominent American made the following comments:

"We have piled on a lot of standardized tests on our kids. Now, there's nothing wrong with a standardized test being given occasionally just to give a baseline of where kids are at."

"Too often what we've been doing is using these tests to punish students or to, in some cases, punish schools."

"Let's find a test that everybody agrees makes sense; let's apply it in a less pressured-packed atmosphere; let's figure out whether we have to do it every year or whether we can do it maybe every several years; and let's make sure that that's not the only way we're judging whether a school is doing well."

"Because there are other criteria: What's the attendance rate? How are young people performing in terms of basic competency on projects?"

"I never want to see happen is schools that are just teaching to the test. Because then you're not learning about the world; you're not learning about different cultures, you're not learning about science, you're not learning about math. All you're learning about is how to fill out a little bubble on an exam and the little tricks that you need to do in order to take a test. And that's not going to make education interesting to you. And young people do well in stuff that they're interested in. They're not going to do as well if it's boring."

These are messages that more than a few teachers and principals want to hear--less testing, less pressure, less punishment of schools, more meaningful assessments, more focus on high-interest material.

If someone had told me that those were quotes made by President Obama In a town hall meeting hosted by Univision, I would have never believed it. Perhaps the fact that he has two school-aged daughters has helped reality sink in. We can only hope.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:24 AM | Permalink

Translation: Oh my God (OMG), laughing out loud (LOL) and my best friend forever (BFF) are now included in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

Heads up teachers! Here are the new academic vocabulary words--900 new words now included in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Actually OMG is not new. It's first confirmed use was in a letter written by a British admiral in 1917.

OMG - "oh my God"

LOL - "laughing out loud"

IMHO - "in my humble opinion"

TMI - "too much information"

BFF - "best friend forever"

By the way (BTW) heart, which for my entire life was a noun, is now also a verb as in "to love."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:41 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The teacher’s lament was plaintive.  He had just been informed that the principal wanted to meet with him about an undisclosed topic.  “I know exactly what he wants to talk about.  It’s my grades—too many “F”s.   I am working harder than I ever have.  I have created a dozen different interventions.  But I can’t change my grading policies.  I know what my students need to be successful.  They are failing because they don’t know the required material.  I’m just giving them what they have earned.”  Another teacher had told him that she had recomputed her grades to avoid “the meeting”.  He then closed with the inspiration of this post.  “I’ll tell you what it is.  It’s grade inflation by intimidation.”

Not as simple as it looks

Virtually every day a new proposal is introduced to save public education in the United States.  Too many of these plans are more focused on reducing failing grades than on the creation of more successful students.  The mere act of lowering the number of “D” and “F” grades does not automatically improve academic performance.  To the contrary, an argument could be made that by giving inflated, inaccurate assessments students are being mislead as to their skill level and misplaced in future courses. 

The grades teachers assign are an important component in assessing their work but it is not a precise tool.  Like every other statistical measure it must be utilized by someone who understands all of the factors at play in any particular classroom.  The broad conclusion that an individual “gives too many poor grades” can be a dangerous oversimplification.

A long inflationary cycle

The presence of grade inflation is not a new phenomenon.  More than 25 years ago teacher evaluation meetings at my school always began with an examination of the “D/F rate."  An assistant principal would look at a printout giving the teacher’s percentage of students receiving grades of either “D” or “F”.  Unfortunately those raw numbers did not always tell the complete story.  For some students a grade of “D+” was a triumph over adversity and past history; for others a “C+” was a reflection of little or no effort.  But for the teachers the former would count as a negative statistic while the latter was of little or no concern.  Without understanding the complete context, individual grades and D/F rates mean little.  But the message, however misguided, was clear—better grades indicate better teaching.

This pressure was relentless.  During a discussion of the topic in a math department meeting one teacher stated the obvious.  “Listen, we are all math people here.  We have the capacity to construct our grading in whatever way they want.  Just tell us what percentages to have and we can make it happen.”  Whether she was serious or not, her contention was accurate. 

Over the years due to a variety of influences the inflation of grades has occurred.  In a typical suburban high school in 2011, a GPA of 3.0 which in theory translates into a “B” which is above average will rank a student in the middle of their class.  Though nearly all measures of achievement clearly indicate little or no improvement by today’s students, at least on paper their academic performance is clearly on the rise.

Parents join the fray

When the AP Biology teacher walked into the parent conference, she was confident that her position on the matter to be discussed was secure.  The student had missed the scheduled mid-term exam to go on a family ski trip.   Prior to the vacation he had presented a form for a prearranged absence.   The teacher had checked the block that indicated she did not approve.  In addition she had written on the paper what she had told the student in person—he would have to take the exam on his first day back at school.  This timing was appropriate since it was in keeping with the class policy she had established on the first day of school and until he took the exam none of his classmates could review their results.  

Though the student had accepted these stipulations, when he returned he informed the teacher that he was not prepared.  She insisted he take the test as per their agreement.  His score was low and resulted in his grade dropping from a “B-” to a “C” for the quarter.  

Some parents are more equal than others

The student’s father was a highly-regarded physician in the community.  During the preliminary discussions at the conference he appeared disinterested in the arguments being presented.  After about ten minutes he held up his hand and said, “Let me be clear.  I really don’t care about all of these details.  I just want to know what it is going to take to make this grade into a “B”.  I don’t care if it is a retest or just exclude him from the mid-term or whatever, let’s find the answer.”  The teacher refused to alter the grade and was asked to leave the meeting.  Later that day the principal informed her that the “C” had been changed to the desired “B”. 

An issue of fairness

Based on this change, the teacher was faced with an ethical dilemma.  Giving this student a “B” would lessen the value of the grades earned by the other students in the class.  Consequently, she decided to proportionally raise everyone’s grades.  Once again, while no additional learning had actually taken place, on paper every student in the course had improved their academic performance.  Not surprisingly, as the details of this episode spread throughout the staff, teachers began to have second thoughts when enforcing valid policies that might result in lower grades.

A time and a place

Many school districts have designed creative methods to give the appearance of reduced disciplinary referrals, absenteeism and dropout rates.  Too often grades are also just another statistic to be manipulated in order to give the appearance of improved success.  There are some teachers whose grading indicates either an inability to correctly assess student performance or ineffective instructional skills.  Such situations must be addressed directly and corrected immediately if education is to be successful. 

But the danger is when lockstep grade expectations are placed on an entire faculty or school district.  There should be cause for concern when a conversation with a teacher who has years of successful experience begins with “you are giving too many bad grades”.   Grades are meaningless if they are not a legitimate reflection of student learning.  The key to truly improving grades is to ensure that students are gaining mastery of the subject matter.  When knowledge acquisition is attained, D/F rates will decline.  And more importantly, they will indicate real academic progress.  

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:37 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Like Mel Riddile, I saw the recent “60 Minutes” segment featuring the TEP School (The Equity Project) in New York City.   The opening tease about a school offering teacher salaries of $125,000 drew my attention.  The segment itself was riveting.  The discussions of hiring, firing and tenure policies in the report were persuasive.  The passion of the teachers and the school’s founder was palpable.  The stories of 80 to 90 hour work weeks were a testament to dedication.  The scenes with the students interacting with their instructors were exhilarating.  The evaluation process with peer involvement and regular administrative visits was inspiring.  I turned to my wife, a retired high school teacher, and announced “I think these people are on to something.”  That enthusiasm was significantly diminished during the final two minutes of the segment. 

Despite the high pay, long hours, classroom enthusiasm and attention to detail, student academic scores fell in the school’s first year.  Of course, one year is hardly a fair trial period but an actual drop in such results is a valid point of concern as well as a reason for some reexamination.

A benign dictatorship

I recently heard in a discussion on NPR that a global dictator would be required to ensure that the world would productively address climate change.  The rationale is that with an all-powerful individual making the decisions, the necessary policy adjustments could be put into place without the intervention of special interests.  It is a parallel analogy to the account that a dictator was the only person who ever successfully made the Italian trains run on time.   Democracy can be so messy.

The TEP model is also a one-man operation.  Its founder and principal, Zeke Vanderhoek, hires and fires the teachers, observes their classes on a regular basis and makes all policy decisions.   Because of his complete control he has been able to creatively increase salaries, easily remove underperforming teachers, eradicate tenure and quickly implement program changes.  All of these factors are positive steps toward improving education.  Plus, as a result of his immense power, his teachers do not have to deal with the same type of bureaucracy other educators face in traditional schools.  If they need an answer or wish to make a suggestion, they need only walk down the hall.   

What has gone wrong?

Working 80 hours a week is impressive.  That amount of time is a clear reflection of commitment but not necessarily a formula for success.  As much as I would love to play in the Major Leagues, even if I spent 12 hours a day, seven days a week in the batting cage, I am not going to successfully hit a Roy Halladay fast ball.  Likewise, a teacher who works twice as many hours is not automatically twice as effective.  Every experienced educator has worked with people who arrive ten minutes before the first bell, leave shortly after the buses and are remarkably successful teachers.  On the other hand, some of the most unproductive educators I have encountered spent voluminous hours in the building.  While no one is quite sure what they were doing, there was no doubt as to its ineffectiveness.  A school’s success is measured by student performance not by the time cards or paychecks of the teachers.  Though it is still early in the process the overriding question remains:  Why is the immense sacrifice of time by the TEP staff not yielding better results?

A potential answer could be found in the administrative structure of the school.  There is no question to the commitment of Mr. Vanderhoek.  It is readily apparent that his primary desire is to create a positive learning environment for the students and teachers.  But he is not unique.  There are multitudes of educational leaders whose passion to find a winning educational formula would match his.  And the majority of those individuals understand that the best recipe for success requires multiple ingredients.  (Here is an additional perspective by an NYC parent.)

Good education needs cross pollination

Portions of the TEP model should be replicated throughout school systems in the country.  Similar effective hiring, firing and evaluation policies must be created to form the best teaching staffs possible.  Highly qualified principals have to clearly possess the institutional power to implement their vision of academic excellence.  But this path needs to include a diverse and significant amount of outside input.  Teacher opinions should be constantly sought.  Other programs should be observed and studied.  Stories of success and failure must be shared at every level both vertically and horizontally.   Strategies that have been proven to work need to be utilized and refined; those that do not should be discarded. 

The lessons of the TEP School’s first year are that relying on only one person’s interpretation of best practices can thwart maximizing potential outcomes.  And when teachers are working 90 hours a week and significant student progress is not occurring it is a clear warning that something is terribly wrong.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:02 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent article in the Washington Post, Joel Klein, former chancellor of the New York City Schools, outlined his recommendations for improving public education.  Mr. Klein begins with the assertion that the path to success goes through teachers and their evaluations.

“Any reform worth its name must start by recognizing that teachers are our most important educational asset. That's why we need to treat teaching as a profession, by supporting excellence, striving for constant improvement and ridding the system of poor performers.”

He also addresses the continuing issue of last hired, first fired.

“Consider the fight over teacher layoffs. In many states, you must lay teachers off solely based on reverse seniority - last in, first out. That's nuts. Do you know anyone who would say ‘I want the most senior surgeon’ rather than ‘I want the best surgeon’? Sure, experience matters. That's why, in baseball, the rookie of the year is almost never the most valuable player. But the rookie of the year is better than a whole lot of 10-year veterans, and every baseball team takes this into account when deciding its roster.”

A point of concern

Mr. Klein finishes his discussion with some thoughts about teacher evaluations.  He feels that tenure allows poor teachers to retain their positions and that it is critical that methods be found to remove underperforming educators through a prescribed process.

“Other, more traditional methods of evaluation could also be applied, such as adopting a set of criteria that can be evaluated by principals and/or master teachers.”

I have bolded the word “principals” because they are my primary concern with Mr. Klein’s recommendations.  If this group is to be instrumental in the hiring, firing and promotions of the teachers in a building, it is crucial that they are clearly qualified to make such decisions.

Better evaluations are needed at every level

The constant focus of the vast majority of educational reformers is on teacher evaluations.  Since I have committed tens of thousands of words to that subject, I obviously agree.  But it is naïve to believe that there are not factors other than teacher performance that can affect student success.   The principal, the educational leader of the staff, is arguably the most important overall influence in the academic environment of the school.  But few are privy to the process used to determine the effectiveness of a school’s principal.  While every new initiative for teacher assessment includes more effective input, support, transparency and easily quantifiable outcomes, for the vast majority of school staff members the evaluation of the job being performed by their principal remains a mystery.

A vague, haphazard process

My most recent experience with the evaluation of a principal illustrates my concerns and those of other teachers.   Before the end of the first semester in the principal’s initial year, a panel of six teachers was convened by an assistant superintendent.  We were never informed how this particular group was selected.   It was certainly not a true cross-section of the staff.  The emphasis was on individuals who had been at the school for extended periods and who had leadership positions. A series of extremely generic questions concerning the new school leader was asked.  Our responses were all virtually the same.   As I looked around I felt as though I was watching a group of “bobble” heads (including myself) as we repeatedly nodded in agreement and said that the school was continuing to move in a positive direction.  The panel had no way of knowing that in the first few months as principal, she was maintaining policies similar to her highly successful predecessor.  However, if a follow up meeting had been conducted six months later, the answers would have been significantly different.  Unfortunately, such a gathering never occurred.

Wrong time, wrong place

The second portion of the principal’s evaluation process was a multiple-choice questionnaire that was given to the teachers at an emergency, afternoon faculty meeting.  Again there were no preliminary discussions or explanations.  The nearly 100 queries were vague, inappropriate and/or redundant but no teacher sought clarification.  Anyone who has ever tried to initiate a serious, significant discussion in such a setting understands the peril in expecting a great deal of candor or assistance.  Reinforcing the perceived disinterest by the district was the lack of any follow up.  The results of the responses were never given to the faculty.  At that point, at least from the perspective of the teachers, the evaluation of their principal had been completed. 

Improving evaluations for everyone

Great schools need both outstanding teachers and equally talented administrators.  If reformatted evaluations are the answer for teachers, might this same strategy be utilized for administrators as well?  Here are some suggestions from the teacher’s point of view.

Make the process transparent.  Mutual respect between the administrative and teaching staffs is critical.  The faculty should be aware of what standards and expectations are being applied to administrators.  The process should be clearly explained by the people who will be conducting it.  Volumes have been written about teacher evaluations; far too little has been revealed about the procedures in place for assessing the individuals who will be doing those appraisals. 

Solicit individual teacher input on a continuing basis.  Group discussions can be undermined by peer pressure or overly persuasive individuals.  Instead of convening a panel every few years, the people responsible for evaluating principals should be in regular contact with multiple staff members throughout the tenure of the school leader.  These conversations should be conducted with a significant and diverse portion of the staff.  It must be clearly indicated to those participating in these one-on-one conversations that they are confidential in order to ensure that honest opinions are being given.  I recently had a teacher confide to me that he had been less than truthful when asked about a principal’s performance and felt guilty when hearing workroom complaints a few weeks later.   Evaluations are only as good as the data they acquire.   Similar meetings should be held with parents, students, and auxiliary staff members.

And please stop the multiple-choice faculty meeting questionnaires!

Principals should also be judged on student progress.   Student performance is included in every new proposal for teachers.  In some cases it is even being published in major newspapers.   Yet there seems to be little attention at least in public to such results in the evaluation of principals.  To the contrary, when the math students at my school were making impressive gains on standardized tests there were multiple district investigations focusing on possible abuses.  When the scores dropped precipitously no similar analysis was forthcoming. 

There is little doubt that teacher evaluations are a key component to the improvement of our educational system.   Successful methods of analyzing the effectiveness of a classroom instructor will improve the best and weed out the weakest.  But if principals are to play a pivotal role in those assessments they must face the same level of scrutiny.  These instructional leaders must be the best a school district can provide.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:24 PM | Permalink

I received this message from a former colleague in an email this morning. "Did you see 60 minutes last night?  A school is paying teachers $125,000 per year and their student score are NOT going up!"

The title of the 60 minutes segment was "NYC charter school's $125,000 experiment: Does a non-unionized school that pays teachers a higher salary get better results?"

Background

Would teachers be willing to give up tenure and job security for a chance to earn a lot more money? "There's a school in New York City that's trying to prove just that. It's a bold new experiment in public education called "TEP," which stands for The Equity Project, a charter school that is publicly funded but privately run. It's offering its teachers $125,000 a year - more than double the national average." Zeke Vanderhoek is TEP's founder and principal.

"TEP aims to prove that attracting the best and brightest teachers and holding them accountable for results is the essential ingredient to a school's success. Could this school become a national model for the future of public education? That's the $125,000 question."

Demographics

TEP students are mostly African American and Hispanic, and almost all of them come from poor families. More than two-thirds of the students are reading below grade level when they get to TEP." There are currently 247 fifth and sixth graders and 15 teachers. That is a ratio of 16.5 students for every teacher.

Why pay teachers $125,000 a year?

"Because they're worth it, because teachers are the key, and if we can pay them this with the existing dollars, why aren't we doing it?" Vanderhoek replied.

"I don't think paying people more makes them a better teacher. You take a mediocre teacher, you double their salary, nothing's gonna change. So, if you wanna attract and retain talent, you have to pay for it. And that is ultimately how student achievement will be impacted," he added."

How are TEP teachers different?

According to the principal, "They're not. There are great teachers in almost every public school in the city. The difference is that they are often the exception, not the rule. So what we're trying to do is build a school where every teacher is a great teacher."

Student Engagement

Teachers must "produce some evidence that the students in their classrooms move from point A to point B," Vanderhoek explained. "In order for students to demonstrate that growth, they have to be into it. And so the teacher has to be able to engage students."

Closing the Achievement Gap

According to 60 Minutes, "the school's challenge is one that has bedeviled American educators for decades: how to get poor, minority, inner city kids to achieve at the same levels as kids from more affluent neighborhoods."

"The difference between a great teacher and a mediocre or poor teacher is several grade levels of achievement in a given year," Vanderhoek replied. "A school that focuses all of its energy and its resources on fantastic teaching can bridge the achievement gap."

Where does the money come from?

"There are no state-of-the-art facilities - classes take place in trailers. And the money that would go to pay for an assistant principal, reading specialist and other staff goes into teachers' salaries. But that means the teachers have to do those jobs as well."

Note: The report never indicated if the school requires students to apply, nor did the report indicate if the school served special education or ELL students.

Teacher Evaluation

Teachers are continuously evaluated by the principal and by each other.

Expectations of Teachers

According to one teacher, "The greatest benefit of working at TEP is that it's not okay to just be okay. And every lesson does need to be laser focused and super sharp so that you can get the best outcomes from it."

Students Say

"They actually care if we succeed and pass college."

"In my old school, I didn't really get that much attention and help with my class work, so I didn't do as well. Here, I'm getting As and Bs because the teachers stay on top of you and they actually help you when you need help," another said.

Teachers on Teaching

"You just have to believe in the kids. And I know that they can learn. And if there's a roadblock, if they're not getting it you know, look at me (teacher) first."

Tenure: If you have a pulse

Most charter schools like TEP are not unionized and don't offer teachers tenure.

"The idea that somebody could have a job for life no matter how they perform is not good for people in that job, much less for the students who have to suffer if that individual has gone downhill," Vanderhook said.

Asked if he thinks tenure should be abolished in general, Vanderhoek said, "Yes."

"If you have a pulse, you get tenure," former NYC Superintendent, Joel Klein said.

Can TEP be scaled up?

Klein says that traditional public schools can't follow the TEP model. Vanderhoek is able to make personnel decisions based on performance, but most schools can't because of tenure.

"It's virtually impossible to terminate an incompetent teacher. The process is so cumbersome that very few people will try. And so, as a result, we virtually get rid of no one for poor performance in the city," Klein said.

"In New York City more teachers have died while on the payroll than have been removed for cause. Over the past three years, out of 55,000 tenured teachers, only seven have been removed for poor performance."

Criteria for Evaluating Teachers

"Is the classroom managed in a way that supports instruction? Second, are the kids engaged? Are they on task? And third, is there evidence that students started at point A and grew to point B?" he explained.

Does More Mean Better?

Teachers indicated that it was not uncommon to put in 80 to 90 hours a week at TEP.

Disappointing Results

"When the fifth graders took the New York State math and reading exams, the results were disappointing. On average, other schools in the district scored better than TEP."

Note: There was no mention of the beginning and ending proficiency levels reached by the school.

It takes time!

"We don't have a magic wand. We're not gonna take kids who are scoring below grade level and bring them up in a year," Vanderhoek said.

"You're the head of the school, the principal. Why do you get to keep your job?" Vanderhoek was asked. "Ultimately to build an excellent organization is going to take time. And if that doesn't happen let's say four years from now, then I shouldn't keep my job," Vanderhoek said.

My Thoughts

- A school that has total control over hiring and firing and also controls which students attend and which students do not attend the school, in my mind, should show significant improvement. How can it not?

- Principal Vanderhoek is correct. It does take time to "build an excellent organization." The culture--attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and behaviors of the adults--must change and culture does not change in a year. TEP teachers were educated at the same colleges and universities as those teachers in other schools. So, why should they be any better or worse than any other teachers? The ultimate question is "Are the teachers better teachers for having taught in that school?" Are the students and teachers being set up for success? Does the culture of the school focus on student success or adult wants?

- There was a glaring omission from the schools criteria for teacher success--classroom management, student engagement, and improved test scores. Given the demographics of the school that consisted of large numbers of under-resourced students, the school staff should consider adding cross-content literacy instruction to their criteria for teacher success.

- The students are saying all the right things about their teachers. That combined with the fact that the teachers are working 80-90 hours a week and not getting results might indicate that they are not working on those things that raise student achievement and working longer will not produce better results. Activity does not equal success.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:27 PM | Permalink

I was in my local gym over the weekend when I glanced at an overhead monitor just as MSNBC was running a feature on the lingering effects of the shift to daylight savings time. The point being made was that the seemingly innocuous one-hour shift could send many into a "jet-laggy tailspin" for days afterwards.

There is an extensive body of research to support the idea that even mild sleep loss can adversely affect us both mentally and physically. The fact is that every Monday our students came into school jet-lagged, the effects of which were compounded by our 7:20 a.m. start time. Ask your students about their sleep patterns on weekends and they will probably indicate that they go to bed late and sleep late. In effect, our students were on west coast time every Monday and the impact probably carried on into Tuesday or Wednesday.

Student Achievement or Adult Convenience

You know a school or a school district is in trouble when the strategic plan follows the principles of the ABC School of Management--Administration By Convenience.  One of the best indicators of an adult-focused environment, one that is practicing the principles of ABC, is when research is blatantly ignored in favor of current practice. Last year I wrote, "At a time when the focus is on firing principals and teachers, here is an easy way to raise student performance by as much as 10%. School start times dramatically impacts academic achievement, behavior, motivation, and student engagement. I pointed to a student-developed video that continues to be true "conversation starter."

A Testimonial

A reader wrote me saying, "When my family moved out of the area, we went from a 7:20 high school start time to an 8:20 high school start time. My older kids had a VERY hard time with 7:20; my son, in particular, had a body clock that just wouldn't let him sleep before midnight. Now, my younger kids handle the 8:20 high school start time with no trouble at all. That hour has made all the difference in the world. If school bus routes are truly running these start-time decisions, then flipping elementary and high school times is perfect. Of course, those parents who use elementary school as a convenient day care would have trouble with the switch--but those problems should not be allowed to override brain science."

Research: Science says, "Let them sleep."

Today, so-called experts insist that schools use research-based strategies to teach students. Those same experts consciously turn their backs on research that would be inconvenient for them to implement.

The consensus in the field — informed by a large Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of American teens — is that adolescents need about nine hours and 15 minutes of sleep a night. Most get less. "Teens are caught in a tug of war between their biology and rules and schedules put in place by adults. Biology is losing."

In Nurtureshock: New Thinking About Children, author Po Bronson points out a number of key scientific facts relating to teens, sleep, and achievement:

• 60% of high schoolers report extreme daytime sleepiness.
• 25% of high school students report that their grades have dropped due to lack of sleep.
• Between 20% and 33% of high school students are "falling asleep in class at least once a week."
• "Children--from elementary school through high school--get an hour less sleep each night than they did thirty years ago.
• Loss on one hour of sleep has been proven to impact academic performance, emotional stability, obesity, and ADHD.
• "The performance gap caused by an hour's difference in sleep was bigger than the gap between a normal fourth-grader and a normal sixth-grader. Which is another way of saying that a slightly sleepy sixth-grader will perform like a mere fourth-grader. A loss of one hour of sleep is the equivalent to (the loss of) two years of cognitive maturation and development."
• Loss of sleep can "impair children's IQ as much as lead exposure."
• "Tired children can remember what they just learned."

Over the span of my career, I have heard many a colleague attribute bad student behavior to hormones. However, when it comes to actually applying science to address hormones, adult convenience again prevails. "A Day in the Life of a Sleepy Student," points out that "hormones play a role. Our brains produce the hormone melatonin as they prepare to sleep. Synthetic forms are sold over the counter as a sleep aid. (Mary) Carskadon found that melatonin levels in adolescents don’t rise until about 10:30 p.m. Sending your teen to bed at 10 is likely to lead to tossing and turning but not much sleep until the body agrees it is time. If a child who can’t sleep until 11 p.m. needs to rise at 6 a.m. to catch a bus, that provides just seven hours of sleep — two hours less than the average adolescent needs."

Minneapolis, which moved high school start times from 7:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. during the 1997-98 school year is a rich source of data on the difference schedules make in teen health and achievement. Scientists at the University of Minnesota did extensive research on the effects and found the following:

• Students report fewer signs of depression than peers with earlier start times. Attendance improved.
• Student transfers dropped
• Kyla Wahlstrom of the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota in an analysis of the schedule change. “Having a later start for the first hour of class appears to enable more students to not oversleep and to arrive at school on time.”
• Academic performance improved.
• Participation in sports and activities remained the same.
• Principals reported fewer discipline issues.
• A reduction in the number of students seeking help with relationship problems
• Parents reported that students were easier to live with.
• Students did not stay up later at night. 10:45 was the typical reported bed time.
• Most slept an additional hour each night.

According to Colleen Shaddox’s story titled “Delaying School Start Times Causes Alarm” , while some schools have acknowledged the science and moved back high school start times, the reason many more have not "lies in a mix of logistics and politics.

The Bottom Line

I spent my first 28 years in education with a 7:20 start time. For my last two years I moved to a school that had an 8:30 start time. I can personally attest to the fact that one hour made a huge difference in the mood of the students and staff. They were awake! If I had the choice, I would never go back to the earlier start time. The argument that I most often hear in support of the early start time is sports and activities. As the Minneapolis study found, student participation in sports and activities was not adversely affected by the later start time. In fact, in my last year, our boys' basketball team won the state championship.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:13 AM | Permalink

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

I recently posted a piece on Working Harder or Working Better, which responded to Bill Daggett's contention that teachers and principals in high-performing schools do not work any harder than teachers and principals in under-achieving schools. They simply work differently.

I asked The Teacher Leader, who taught math at our school, J.E.B. Stuart High School, for 40 years, if my memory was correct and here is what he said.

"I thought your blog was excellent and accurately captured what happened at Stuart High School during that time. The key message is that teaching successfully is easier and more satisfying but no less time consuming.  Finding strategies that work can be difficult, but they make the job so much more meaningful and the education so much better."

The Teacher Leader captures the essence of what I wanted to communicate. "Teaching successfully is easier and more satisfying but no less time consuming." In other words, we are still working hard but we are getting a lot more done, and, even more importantly, we are feeling a lot better about our work.

Here is another key point. When teachers are doing better that means that students are succeeding, or is it that when students are succeeding teachers are doing better and feeling better about what they do.

When students and teachers expect success, the positive, can-do feelings that emerge cannot help but enhance teacher-student relationships, which, in turn, improve student performance. In other words, success begets more success.

The better students do, the better they do. The better teachers do the better they feel about teaching. It is our job as school leaders to create a teacher-friendly environment and remove barriers in order to set our teachers up for success, and it is the job of the teachers to do the same for our students.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:10 PM | Permalink

This week I am blogging from the NASSP Conference in San Francisco.

"More is easy. Better is hard."

This morning I listened to Bill Daggett of ICLE talk about school improvement. Bill said something that I have heard him say many times before. In fact, I have used the same statement in many of my own presentations. What Bill said went something like this. "Teachers and principals in high-performing schools are not working harder than their counterparts in other schools, but they are working different."

I had to pause and recall our experience in moving from a good to a great school. I often describe the first three to five years as "dog years." Each year seemed like seven in terms of the stress and workload. However, the last four or five years were a lot different.

It seemed like we were working harder in the early years mainly because we were doing so much experimentation. We were trying to figure out a school wide approach to improving literacy and how to turn around our Algebra I performance. We were inventing things that no one else had done before. We were pioneers or "edunauts" as I called education improvers.

We were changing on a daily basis and that is stressful, but stressful doesn't mean working harder. It just seemed that way. Our teachers were already arriving early and leaving late and that never changed. From my perspective, I could not ask any of them to work harder.

We needed to get better and better is harder. What did change was that we were reaching "tipping points" and we started to see things change. We were actually making progress.

Our students were improving dramatically and it seemed like it happened in an instant. We would work and work and hope that we were doing the right thing. Then, all of a sudden, we would see improvement. We couldn't point to the exact moment when all the students were in class on time, or when all the teachers were teaching bell-to-bell, or when our reading performance and algebra achievement jumped, but it happened, and the positive changes began to gain momentum. Success became contagious.

I liken the school improvement process to an airplane taking off and eventually reaching cruising altitude. A lot of energy is expended in the takeoff and the climb to the desired altitude. However, at a point the plane reaches altitude and seems to ease off. Although the plane continues to expend energy, it seems to be taking less effort.

We never stopped working hard, but we were working in a different way, and different is hard, at least at first.

As we moved through the stages of change from forming, storming, norming on the way to performing, we were working just as hard but we were enjoying it more, and here is the key. We were making progress. We were making a difference with our students, and that made us even more determined. We simply refused to go back to the way it used to be, because the way it was was simply too much fun, and because we were having fun, everything seemed to be much easier.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:25 PM | Permalink

This week I am blogging from the NASSP Conference in San Francisco.

I used to say, "show me the data." However, it has gotten to the point that I no longer need to look at a school's data to know that a school is thriving or struggling. I can simply listen to what the staff of the school talks about. High-performing schools talk about students and how they are meeting their needs. Struggling schools talk about adult wants and adult needs.

Student-Focused

After attending three School Showcase presentations this morning it became crystal clear to me that schools serving large numbers under-resourced students must have a student-focused obsession, and that obsession must relate to the specific needs of the population that the school serves.

The three schools all served under-resourced students. However, the three high schools varied in size, had very different demographics, and were located in states with very different economics and education policies. The context in which these schools operated was about as different as they could possibly be.

Although they were very different in appearance, the three schools had a lot in common. They each had a laser-like focus on student success that bordered on an obsession. In fact, these three schools were so obsessed with student success that they were willing to overcome any obstacle that got in their way.

Literacy: Brockton High School (MA) is a large (4,350) urban high school that has focused on raising the literacy--reading, writing, thinking, discussing--levels of ALL students, particularly its large ELL population. Principal, Susan Szachowicz, and a "handful of fellow teachers" organized a school wide campaign that brought reading and writing lessons into every class in all subjects, including gym. According to a New York Times article, Brockton's literacy-for-all success has defied the "small is better orthodoxy" proving that any school can beat the odds and raise student performance.

Attendance: The audience turned to each other with looks of disbelief when the staff of Arroyo High School (CA) posted their three-year attendance figures. Arroyo's average daily attendance was well over 96%. For a large, high-poverty, high minority, urban high school, 96% is phenomenal. However, I could see the enthusiasm abate as the staff spent about twenty minutes describing all the initiatives the school used to improve attendance. As I have emphasized over and over again, improving student attendance is all about hard work and will power, and the Arroyo staff have plenty of both. Arroyo's success formula is simple. Get the students to attend school every day and make sure that the students succeed.

Course Failure: The presentation began with a simple but very effective slide that pointed out that, over a three-year period, Barberton (OH) High School had reduced course failures from over 2,500 to 350. The staff at Barberton must have read Bob Balfanz's dropout research that points out that course failure is one of the best indicators of dropping out of school. Admittedly, a school could reduce failures by simply lowering standards. This was not the case at Barberton, where the focus was clear and no obstacle too big to overcome. The staff used small learning communities, flexible scheduling, a unique master schedule, student-led conferences, and an advisory program among other strategies to significantly improve student performance.

The Bottom Line

These three schools demonstrate that there are no quick fixes. Even though these schools shared a student-focused obsession it took years of hard work, dedication, determination, and sheer will power to realize success. However, their obvious pride and sense of accomplishment make it obvious that the effort was all worth it.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:30 PM | Permalink

Here are the latest facts on the implementation of the School Improvement Grants (SIG):

• 2,138 - schools identified by states as eligible for SIG funding
• 833 - schools awarded funds
• 470 - high schools receiving SIG funds
• 45 - percentage of funds going to high schools
• 1/3 - high schools identified by states due to low graduation rates
• 1/3 - high schools identified by states due to low student achievement
• 23 - percentage of funds going to middle schools
• 36 - percentage of high schools funded who are "dropout factories"
• 50 - percent of SIG schools designated as "Central City"
• 25 - percent of SIG schools designated as rural
• 72 - percent of schools that chose the "Transformation Model"
• States who used 100% of SIG funds for high schools - AK, DE, FL, IL
• States who used more than 80% of SIG funds for high schools - MT, NC, NY, OR, TX
• States who used 20% or less of SIG funds for high schools - IA, MD, MA, ND, NV, SD, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:10 PM | Permalink

According to Dean Fixen, co-director of the National Implementation Network, the federal School Improvement Grants (SIG) program is doomed to fail. SIG won't fail because the program is a bad idea. SIG will fail because the improvements will never be properly implemented. Even though the "intentions are great, the ultimate execution falls flat."

According to Fixen, schools have a 95 percent chance of failure when they use the standard school improvement approach:

1. Attempt too many initiatives.

2. Attempt to do too many things in too short a period of time.

3. Choose the latest popular strategies, even if those strategies have nothing to do with the actual needs of the students.

3. Provide one-shot training.

4. Pay little attention to "on-the-spot practice during training."

5. Fail to provide adequate targeted, follow-up coaching.

Fixen goes on to explain that "schools feel pressured to quickly hire more staff and pile on new evidence-based interventions. According to the data on implementation, those are pretty much the wrong things to do. It’s our tendency to add more things in hopes that we’ll find the right combination that will lead to a better outcome.”

A friend of mine recently lamented, "I told them (school) to keep it simple, but they keep adding more things." "Positive change is more likely in a turnaround school when you simplify the number of initiatives you take on and do a bang-up job implementing them, Fixsen said. A school reform grant program that emphasizes innovation without adequate implementation support is like attempting to drive a car without any gasoline in it, Fixsen added."

What or How?

In our obsession with the search for quick fixes and magic bullets we spend virtually all of our time deciding on the "what" and very little time on the "how" of school improvement. Ironically, we pay little or no attention to what has been identified as the major weakness of school reform over the past fifty years--implementation.

Fixsen points out that "The education field continues to reinvent a misshapen wheel, and the problem is not a lack of well-meaning, competent educators or best practices, he said. Rather, it’s that too few educators and policymakers know the basics of effective implementation." We don't need more research and more ideas we need to do a better job of implementing what we already have.

It's not just schools

Education is not the only field with implementation problems. Implementation "is the huge missing link in education and all of human services," Fixsen said. "We are as a human race just finding this stuff out. These are global issues."

Recommendations for School Leaders:

1. Choose a small number of major initiatives. I prefer two or three. The operative word here is "major." A school may have a number of strategies and practices supporting a major initiative. For example, a school wide literacy initiative may include a literacy council, diagnostic assessments, and cross-curricular vocabulary instruction.

2. Work with the "willing." Involve those staff members who have already have skills or an interest in a specific initiative. Let them test out possible approaches.

3. Grow leaders - Unless a school wide initiative has visible teacher leadership, it will probably fail.

4. Think both short-term and long-term. Big changes usually mean a shift in the school culture and will probably take years (3-5) to become permanent. However, it is important to realize some quick-wins early in the process. Vocabulary instruction may be a way to help students in the short-run, while building the collective capacity of the entire staff to integrate literacy into daily instruction may be the long-term approach.

5. Professional development should be consistent, ongoing, and job-imbedded. Think in terms of a multi-year training schedule. Build teacher participation and peer observation into your professional development plan.

6. Constantly monitor and measure everything you do to ensure fidelity of implementation--are we doing what we say we are doing and are we doing it the right way?

7. Insist upon fidelity. Refuse to move on to the next stage until you have successfully implemented the current strategies.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:10 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

I have always believed that great coaching and great teaching are interchangeable commodities.   This conviction was fortified when I read the story of a professor of Russian at Indiana University.  After watching basketball practice led by Bobby Knight in the school’s field house he turned to a colleague and said, “I just witnessed the finest teaching on this campus.” 

The life of another marvelous teacher/coach, Vince Lombardi, has been chronicled in an    HBO sports documentary “Lombardi”.  This riveting film provides important insights into a powerful battle plan for success in both academics and athletics.  Lombardi’s talents as a coach were clearly established by his record.  He inherited a team in Green Bay that had only one victory the previous season and had not had a winning record in more than a decade.  His initial season reversed that trend with seven wins and only five losses.  In the next eight he won five world championships.  One recurring theme throughout the discussion of his remarkable success on the football field was that Lombardi’s greatest strength was as a teacher.  His former players spoke with reverence of how this man had taught them to be both better players and better people. 

In the beginning

His skills as an educator and coach began at the high school level.  Lombardi began his career at a small Catholic school with an enrollment of 300.  The 26-year old taught Latin, Chemistry and Physics.   One of his former students recalled, “He was driven.  He was determined that every one of us would learn.  For the slower students he showed great patience. He took whatever time was necessary to make sure they would understand.  He demanded that we do our best.”  (Lombardi’s fiery personality on the field was also present in the classroom.  The same student related in vivid detail an incident that had occurred more than 60 years ago.  He recounted the story of how the teacher/coach threw an eraser at a girl who was talking in the back of the room.  He added that discipline was no longer a problem after that event.)

A similarly aggressive approach was taken on the football field.  Though the school was significantly smaller than the others in its conference, Lombardi insisted that his team could be better than their opponents.  “Every one of the other teams seemed to be at least a head taller than all of us,” related a former player.  “But somehow he convinced us that it didn’t matter.  He made us believe we could do anything.”  Playing against schools with enrollments ten times as large, his teams won six championships in eight years.  At one point they won 32 games in a row.

As I watched this story unfold it was quickly apparent how appropriate the methods utilized by Lombardi in his coaching would be in creating academic success.  His words were equally powerful on the field or in the classroom.

 “I can learn anything if I try.”

 Despite his great success in football, perhaps Lombardi’s most remarkable achievement occurred with the school’s basketball team.  Though he had never played the game, when there was a coaching vacancy, he accepted the challenge.  Armed with a book he had secured from the library on how to coach basketball, he began a second coaching adventure.  Combining his educational skills, motivational tools, and a daily rereading of the various chapters he found most appropriate, he was soon the leader of another championship team.  His lack of experience or knowledge of the sport was no match for his talents as a teacher.  This episode demonstrates how important it is to effectively convey information as an educator.  All teachers need to be equipped with the ability to communicate their subject matter and a vision of what their students need to know in order to succeed.  

 “You cannot coach them what they have not been taught.”

Every great teacher or coach understands that without a solid grounding in the fundamentals improvement cannot be attained.  Lombardi realized that he could not expect his players to excel until they understood the basics of everything he was trying to achieve.  It was reminiscent of another great coach and teacher UCLA’s John Wooden.  Wooden began the first practice of every season with a detailed lecture on the correct way to tie one’s shoelaces.  Wooden knew this speech was a source of amusement for his players many of whom had heard it for three or four years.  But he also knew that a player who had blisters on his feet was of little value. 

The same philosophy is required in education. Learning good study skills are just as important to academic success as the three-point stance in football or properly tying your sneakers.  Without a strong foundation in Algebra 1, reading, the scientific method, the first year of a language, or grammar, all subsequent courses will suffer. 

“Always seek perfection.  You will never attain it, but if you try you may pass excellence along the way.”

No detail is too small or unimportant.  Lombardi’s favorite play was his “power sweep.”  John Madden recalled a coaching seminar he attended that featured a lecture by Lombardi on the play.  “I went in there cocky thinking I knew everything there was to know about football,” reflected Madden who was a young assistant at the time, “and he spent eight hours talking about this one play.  He talked for four hours, took a break and came back and talked four more.”  Madden shook his head.  “I realized then that I actually knew nothing about football.”

Lombardi, an undersized offensive lineman at Fordham University who was immortalized as one of the “seven blocks of granite”, understood that he was an imperfect man both as a person and as an athlete.  What he also realized was that the sincere pursuit of perfection would result in continual improvement and ultimately success.  Consequently a winning season was not his goal as a coach.  A championship was always his ultimate objective.  As his teams worked toward achieving that aim, victories would follow.  The same strategy needs to be employed in teaching.   When expectations are low, minimal success will result.  Only when educators have the highest of expectations for their students combined with rigor to match will academic success be maximized. 

 “Winning is everything.  Anything else is losing.”

In later life Lombardi regretted making this comment.  He clarified that what he really meant was that “if someone gives any endeavor every fiber of their being, they can consider themselves a winner.”   If the similar demands were placed on our educators and students would not the results in our schools be the same as the Packers?  Should we ask anything less?

The formula is always the same

Vince Lombardi was not the first coach to win multiple championships nor would he be the last.  He did not invent a strategy that guaranteed victory.  What he did do was build a clear vision of what factors were the keys to success.    The plan was remarkable in its simplicity.  He only concerned himself with those aspects he could control.  He could not make his players inherently better athletes.  Instead, he stressed that every player was drilled on the fundamentals, knew his responsibilities, gave his maximal effort at every opportunity and understood that what was best for the team was what was best for him as well.  Lombardi would not allow for compromise on these beliefs or tolerate shortcuts to make the path less difficult.  He sought perfection and found excellence at almost every turn. 

Is this a plan that would work equally well for education?  Vince Lombardi’s record of success should make the answer to that question obvious.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:30 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

High schools in the United States must effectively deal with two simultaneous challenges.  In addition to preparing a portion of their population to have the tools required to succeed immediately in the work force after graduation they must also equip the remainder of the student body to thrive on a college campus. The latter responsibility is critical if this country is to be competitive in the global economy. Currently only 30% of Americans possess a college degree - a number that must improve. Strategies need to be designed to ensure that more students succeed in progressing through the kindergarten to college continuum.  But there are some troubling reports emerging concerning the quality of the education at many universities.   

A very low bar

According to an article by Mary Beth Marklein in the USA Today, “Nearly half of the nation's undergraduates show almost no gains in learning in their first two years of college, in large part because colleges don't make academics a priority.”  The report was based on the book by New York University professor Richard Arum Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses which studied transcripts from more than 3,000 full-time traditional-age students on 29 campuses nationwide.  In addition the researchers used the results from the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test that gauges students' critical thinking, analytic reasoning and writing skills.  The numbers are discouraging—after two years of college, 45% of the students demonstrated no significant gains in learning.  After four years, more than one third (36%) still showed little improvement.

Many reasons - few which are good

The report attributed the lack of academic progress to a number of factors:

-  Instructors tend to be more focused on their own faculty research than teaching younger students.

- Students were more involved in their social lives than their academic success.

- Students spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago.

- Half of the students in the survey said they never took a class in a typical semester where they wrote more than 20 pages; 32% never took a course in a typical semester where they read more than 40 pages per week.

Professor Arum, the lead author of the book, found the results of great concern. “These are really…shocking, disturbing numbers.”  One number that might be even more appalling was 3.2—the average GPA of the students in the study.  Arum then stated the obvious “Students are able to navigate through the system quite well with little effort.”

An unfortunate helping hand

One of those navigational skills employs the ability to purchase rather than learn.  I recently performed a Google search on the topic “Research Paper”.  The original intent was to find out information for someone who was seeking honors credit in a college class.  Much to my surprise four of the top five options were websites that offered “from scratch” essays ranging from term papers to dissertations.  These sites offered 100% guaranteed satisfaction, free delivery and charged on average less than $8 per page.  The turnaround time was the main cost consideration.  The student need only send in the required topic, format, citation requirements and length.  The proliferation of companies offering these services adds to Professor Arum’s arguments.

While such “services” are certainly not the main cause of the lack of learning on college campuses they do speak to the larger problem.  Too many lines are being blurred in the pursuit of a degree.  What accountability do colleges have in demonstrating that they are effectively teaching their students?  High schools are constantly under pressure to monitor the intellectual and moral development of their students.  Are universities responsible for scrutinizing undergraduates in the same manner?  Is success in college due to actual student performance or high parental tuition payments? 

Is this a concern for high school educators?

I have postulated that the decline in public education can at least partially be attributed to an attitude in our society that is more concerned about eliminating failure than it is in creating success.  These statistics give credence to the belief that this attitude has continued into higher education.

The poor academic performance of so many college students raises many questions in reference to their experiences in high school.  Is the ability to achieve good grades with little knowledge acquisition unique to the university or is it being cultivated in earlier years?  Is the lack of rigor and high expectations a carryover from the high school or is it found only at the university level?   Has grade inflation made all performances suspect?  

While the problems established in this research may apply exclusively to the students in college, they should be of concern to everyone in education.  Finding the root causes could reveal some weaknesses that need to be addressed. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:24 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Master Teacher

The latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results have been announced.  In this test, which included 15-year old students in 34 countries, the United States ranked 14thin reading, 17th in science and 25th in math.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced, “The results are extraordinarily challenging to us and we have to deal with the brutal truth. We have to get much more serious about investing in education.” He continued, “This is an absolute wake up call for America." 

Predictable outcomes will ensue.  Our students’ academic problems will be cast as the direct result of the failure of educators with special attention given to teachers and principals.   Fingers will be pointed, jobs will be lost, money will be spent and research studies will be launched.  New names will be given to strategies that have failed in the past.  And in 2012 when the next PISA tests are given the results will be remarkably similar.

A culture of denial

These rash, thoughtless responses are not the exclusive domain of the Department of Education. The majority of the blame rests squarely on a society that consistently seeks fast, easy fixes rather than tough, permanent solutions.  As a culture we strive mightily to reduce the perception of failure but have little interest in creating genuine success.

The most recent brouhaha in Congress over the tax code is an illustration of the preference for expediency rather than a difficult resolution.  The debate was clearly drawn—the Democrats wanted to extend unemployment benefits and the Republicans said no because it would add to the deficit.  The GOP sought tax relief for the rich.  They were told no because it would add to the deficit.  The solution spoke volumes—pass both.  

The option to choose the easy “yes” over the more challenging “no” permeates nearly every societal endeavor.  We wring our hands about rising childhood obesity but when common sense is sought on the ubiquity of fat and sugar laden school bake sales, cries of “nanny state” proliferate.  Instead of undertaking the challenging task of explaining the complexity behind the use of the “n-word” by Mark Twain, movements are afoot to replace the offensive reference with “slave” thus making the book far more palatable to those with no interest in the actual intent of the author.

The sports world is equally guilty of favoring quantity over quality.  In 1950 the NCAA had eight bowl games after the completion of the college football season.  These events were designed to recognize the very best college teams in the nation.  Only sixteen squads were considered good enough to participate.  Being part of this select group was special for both the players and their schools.  In 1970 there were 11 games and by 1980 the number had risen to 15.   The combined lure of more money and an opportunity to artificially make more programs look good created an explosion of meaningless games.  By 2000 there were 25 and this year the count is at 35.  More than half of all NCAA teams now participate in a bowl.  The stated requirement for entry is six victories in a twelve-game season.   Apparently, this is our new, twenty-first century’s definition of “athletic excellence”?

Obviously, our educational system is not exempt from these trends.  My former school district now adds a 1.0 (in a 4.0 grading system) for all advanced courses and a 0.5 for ones labeled honors.  And there are plenty of these courses to go around.  One high school teacher complained that only sixteen of the science classes in her entire building were not called honors.  But despite the windfall of bonus points, the requirements for the honor roll are unchanged.  A GPA of 3.0 is quickly becoming the new “average” score and a 4.5 (out of 4) rarely merits valedictorian consideration. Is it any surprise that students living in this cultural environment have bought into the concept that hard work and discipline are unnecessary when time after time, the system brings success to them without any effort on their part? 

Improvement requires tough choices

Creating an educational system that is commensurate with our world view of the United States will not be accomplished with empty rhetoric, sporadic firings, or excessive handwringing.  It will only be accomplished when this country is willing to stop looking for shortcuts and quick fixes and turns instead to fundamental changes that will result in true reform.  The school year needs to be lengthened as does the school day.  Summer vacations should disappear along with social promotions.  The teaching profession needs to be recognized as important and populated with people worthy of that stature.  Their input should be the foundation of future educational policy.  Administrators should be chosen for their vision and leadership abilities and then allowed and encouraged to use both.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:54 PM | Permalink

Several years ago the College Board announced a dramatic departure from past procedures and began requiring Advanced Placement (AP) teachers to submit a syllabus for approval. I viewed this as an attempt by the College Board to protect both it good name and brand. Up to that point, a course could be called AP, but the content of the course was strictly up to the discretion of the teacher. In theory, the AP course was designed to prepare students to take an AP exam. However, some schools were gaming the system by "offering more AP courses," but, in reality, many of the students enrolled in those courses never sat for the exams. Of those who did take the exams, the national rate of students scoring a passing grade of 3, 4, or 5 plummeted to approximately sixteen percent.

I remarked at the time the AP was trying to look more like the International Baccalaureate (IB), and I predicted that the trend would continue to intensify in the near future. According to the New York Times, that is precisely what is happening and I view this as a positive trend that will dramatically change the quality of the AP courses and take much of the guesswork out of the process for both teachers and students. However, these changes will stress out veteran AP teachers, who have become accustomed to doing their own thing. This means problems for school leaders.

Some of the changes, which take effect in 2012 and 2013 include:

• Reductions in the amount of material that teachers need to teach and that students need to know for the tests
• Providing a curriculum framework for what courses should look like
• A move away from memorization to a focus on bigger concepts and more analytic thinking
• A move away from multiple-choice responses to an emphasis on thinking and written expression
• More hands-on activities and experiments intended to help students think more
• An emphasis on going into greater depth on fewer topics, allowing students to "experience problem-solving, controversies and the subtleties of scholarly investigation.”

Instead of drawing my own conclusions about these changes in philosophy, I practiced what I frequently preach. I asked an expert teacher. In this case, I happen to know a master biology teacher who has a unique perspective. Sherry Singer actually taught AP Biology for approximately fourteen years and then switched to IB Biology for another fourteen years. In here own words, here is Sherry's take on the changes.

"Having taught both AP (Advanced Placement) and IB (International Baccalaureate), it is very clear to me what is happening.  The AP is moving more and more to the IB model.  This is a very good trend in my view. 
When I used to teach AP (and it sounds as if it hasn't changed very much if at all), I was frustrated by the amount of information that was to be taught in one year.  It necessitated students coming in before or after school, during lunch or on Saturdays just to meet the basic requirements of the course.  I could really empathize with the teacher who said that she hoped that she could retire her "swift marches through the organ of the day".  They only required 12 labs but we needed several days each to do them well and even at that, we never really had time to discuss the results or what could have been done to improve the lab.  The tests were largely multiple choice and the essay questions were so broad that it was difficult to determine exactly what the AP was looking for in an answer.
The first and most important difference with IB was that I could have two years.  (Something that the AP still apparently does not permit.)  What a joy to be able to have the time to perform labs well and actually discuss the results.  The IB requires laboratory work but the instructor can choose which labs will be performed and they must be at least partially developed by the student.  In other words, the student actually does research rather than performing a canned lab that was developed by a university professor.  Obviously, the benefits to the students working in this kind of laboratory situation where problem solving was critical transformed lab days for me and my students.  From the article, it sounds like the AP is going in this direction by having students develop their own hypotheses and figure out how to test them - very IB!
The other change that was mentioned was that they are going to give teachers a detailed syllabus stating what topics need to be taught and which can be left out.  If they do as good a job as the IB, this should be a great help to AP teachers.  I found the IB syllabus to be a huge help when designing my course.  (In fact I used to copy the IB syllabus and give it to the students to help them study for the exam.) If a topic, term or concept was not in the syllabus it was NEVER on the IB exam.  It allows teachers to have more time to develop concepts in depth.  I remember the first few years that I taught IB, luxuriating in the extra time to do labs well and have meaningful, in-depth discussions with students without feeling the clock ticking behind me. 
Finally, the IB tests were only 40 multiple-choice questions.  The other questions were data-based or essay.  The data-based questions often dealt with data that the students had never encountered before. This was done by design and was intended to help the graders determine which students could take their knowledge of biology and make sense out of totally new data - something that scientists have to do every day.  The third type of question was essay.  But the essays were always divided into sub-headings, which helped the students organize their answers and ensured that they delivered the information that the test designers were looking for." 

What school leaders should consider

• The changes in AP Biology and other science courses courses will require appropriately equipped labs, which, in tight budget times, may be difficult to implement.
• "Another concern is how well teachers — across the full range of A.P. subjects — will adjust to an approach that will require them to give up some control and let the students dictate more about where the class discussions go." Like IB, these changes in AP will require a considerable amount of professional development. As Sherry Singer once told me, "We are going to have to totally change the way we teach science."
• Both AP and the new Common Core assessments will require more writing by our students, which is known weakness in most high schools. We cannot wait until students take their first AP course to begin emphasizing writing skills. Ditto for critical thinking skills.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:59 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent article in the “Washington Post”, Jay Mathews lamented his inability to obtain accurate information concerning the number of discipline referrals that were being issued in various school districts.  He discovered that for public relations purposes many systems refused to divulge such data.  He asked Mel Riddile for advice on how to obtain the information.  The response was simple—“Ask the teachers. They are the ones who can tell you what the discipline is like in a school.”

It seems so simple and yet…

Obtaining accurate information does not have to be complicated.   To find out what it is like to be a baggage handler, ask a person who handles baggage not a passenger on the plane.  When seeking a good recipe for chili, query an individual who has successfully cooked the dish not the one who has tasted it.  If the goal is to understand how to be a successful high school principal, ask Mel Riddile whose resume clearly demonstrates he had effectively led a high school for more than a decade.  And to gauge the educational environment at a school, talk to the teachers.

But while this approach may appear to be both prudent and logical it is not always the method utilized in making educational decisions. Too many of the people who make critical choices concerning schools are using the same stonewalling tactics that frustrated Mr. Mathews.

Why not go to the source?

Why then, if accurate, firsthand information comes from the source, are teachers often the last group consulted?  One cannot help but hypothesize that a truthful, honest reaction may not be the desired one.  Solving problems can be difficult and time consuming.

Early in his tenure as a principal Mel began using monthly department chair meetings as a forum for gathering information.  The responses that he received may have created additional work for his staff but they helped to mold more effective educational philosophies in the building.    For example, the head of the science department once informed him that her department could not maximize student performance until attendance improved, facilities were updated (the laboratories had not been renovated since the school opened 37 years earlier) and the students could read at or above grade level.  To varying degrees the other chairs agreed with her assessment.  Plans were soon implemented that in time would directly address the three issues.

A geometry teacher lamented to me that she could not get her weak students to come after school for the thirty minutes of extra help that could make the difference between passing and failing.  Not surprisingly she had discovered that the lure of a better grade was not sufficient motivation to outweigh the other more attractive options available to students at the conclusion of a day. In many schools such concerns are directed back at the teacher with the implication that new strategies are needed to better motivate their students.  But this query became the focal point of a wide-ranging conversation that was dominated by a group of classroom teachers—the department chairs.  The result was a school-wide remediation program involving students, teachers and administrators in a coordinated and effective plan that that resulted in significant student improvement.

A different kind of leadership model

Mutually emboldened by these successes Mel and the staff began a collaborative effort to reconstruct many of the other existing policies within the school.  The ordering of faculty supplies was an excellent example of this approach.  For decades every teacher had been given a specific amount of money to spend in the spring on classroom needs for the upcoming school year.  The negative ramifications of this system were legendary.  Faced with a one-time only opportunity to order, teachers were determined to spend all of their allotted money and then hoard materials in the fear that they would run out.  The workroom grumbling was rampant throughout the year.  With strong teacher input, a new method was designed based on the tenets of trust and necessity.  Throughout the year teachers could order what they needed when they needed it.  The mechanism was to complete a purchase order and submit it to their department chair, who would then consolidate items when appropriate and pass it on to the finance officer.   The results were astounding.  The school spent less money overall; teachers openly shared supplies; and staff morale soared.  Instead of being doled out an “allowance” like an adolescent, teachers were treated like professionals and responded in a similar manner.   

The same collaborative model was used in a variety of other situations.  The in-service week prior to the beginning of the year had always been an emotional tug-of-war between the teaching and administrative staffs.  A survey was conducted which indicated that many of the teachers had to spend significant amounts of personal time on weekends and evenings to prepare for the first day of classes.  With this data in hand and a list of the district’s expectations for the week, a committee of teachers was convened that developed a plan that met the needs of all involved. 

The formula is straightforward

Teachers are the only staff members in the building that are in the front-lines of educating students day in and day out. Collecting their input is essential to truly resolving educational problems in a building.  It is an approach that may take a few more minutes at the outset, but the solutions generated are guaranteed to improve both teacher and administrator morale.  Why?  Only when problems are correctly identified by the people who are experiencing them, can they be eliminated.  Collaborative problem solving between administrators and teachers makes sense because it works.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:17 PM | Permalink

According to a report by Catherine Gewertz of Education Week, a study released today by the Center on Education Policy, indicates that testing at the high school level will increase.

• More states are using assessments as barriers to graduation and requiring other exams that are not linked to graduation. Twenty-eight states now have such requirements, up from 26 in the 2009 report.
• Three quarters of the nation’s students now attend schools in states that give exit exams.
• Twenty-three states currently give end-of-course tests. Only seven use them as exit exams, but another 10 plan to begin doing so.
• States increasingly are requiring students to take a college-entrance exam—the ACT or SAT—or a workplace-readiness test such as WorkKeys.
• More states also are requiring or considering some form of portfolio assessment.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:33 AM | Permalink

"There are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics."--Mark Twain

The release of the 2009 PISA results this past week has created quite a stir and has provided ample fodder for public school bashers and doomsayers who further their own philosophical and profit-motivated agendas by painting all public schools as failing. For whatever reason, these so-called experts, many of whom have had little or no actual exposure to public schools, refuse to paint an accurate picture of the state of education.

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, should be providing the nation with a proper vision and focus for public education. He knows our challenges all too well. He confirmed that he gets it when he recently wrote me saying, "We must build a culture nationally where great educators ... choose to work with children and communities who need the most help." I believe his message is sincere and heartfelt and it is spot on. However, overstating a problem in order to increase the sense of urgency around school improvement is just as bad as understating the problem.

This week, Duncan had a golden opportunity to use the PISA results to provide focus for our education efforts and to point us in the right direction. Instead, he dug himself deeper into the pseudo-reformers' hole--more charter schools, more reliance on competition and free-market strategies, more testing, more use of test scores to evaluate teachers, more firing of principals and teachers, more closing of low-scoring schools--when he said, "the PISA scores released this past Tuesday were "a massive wake-up call," because the scores show American students holding relatively steady in the middle of the pack of the developed nations taking the international exam.

There is, however, someone who recognizes that the data is being misinterpreted.  NEAToday published remarks from National Association of Secondary School Principals Executive Director, Dr. Gerald N. Tirozzi, that have taken "a closer look at how the U.S. reading scores on PISA compared with the rest of the world’s, overlaying it with the statistics on how many of the tested students are in the government’s free and reduced lunch program for students below the poverty line." Tirozzi pointed out, “Once again, we’re reminded that students in poverty require intensive supports to break past a condition that formal schooling alone cannot overcome.” Tirozzi demonstrates the correlation between socio-economic status and reading by presenting the PISA scores in terms of individual American schools and poverty.  While the overall PISA rankings ignore such differences in the tested schools, when groupings based on the rate of free and reduced lunch are created, a direct relationship is established.

With strong evidence that increased poverty results in lower PISA scores the next question to be asked is what are the poverty rates of the countries being tested?  (Listed below are the countries that were tested by PISA along with available poverty rates. Some nations like Korea do not report poverty rates.)

Leveling the playing field

A more accurate assessment of the performance of U.S. students would be obtained by comparing the scores of American schools with comparable poverty rates to those of other countries.

Schools in the United States with less than a 10% poverty rate had a PISA score of 551.  When compared to the ten countries with similar poverty numbers, that score ranked first. 

In the next category (10-24.9%) the U.S. average of 527 placed first out of the ten comparable nations. 

For the remaining U.S. schools, their poverty rates over 25% far exceed any other country tested.  However, when the U.S. average of 502 for poverty rates between 25-49.9% is compared with other countries it is still in the upper half of the scores.

Mathematically Speaking

The results of the latest PISA testing should raise serious concerns.  However, the overall ranking of 14th in reading is not the reason to be concerned. The problem is not as much with our educational system as it is with our high poverty rates. The real crisis is the level of poverty in too many of our schools and the relationship between poverty and student achievement. Our lowest achieving schools are the most under-resourced schools with the highest number of disadvantaged students. We cannot treat these schools in the same way that we would schools in more advantaged neighborhoods or we will continue to get the same results. The PISA results point out that the U.S. is not alone in facing the challenge of raising the performance of disadvantaged students.

Additional observations from PISA results:

·      Shanghai, China topped the list with 556 but is not included in this analysis because Shanghai is a city not a country and because only 35% of Chinese students ever enter high school and because "when you spend all your time preparing for tests, and when students are selected based on their test-taking abilities, you get outstanding test scores."

·      Of all the nations participating in the PISA assessment, the U.S. has, by far, the largest number of students living in poverty--21.7%. The next closest nations in terms of poverty levels are the United Kingdom and New Zealand have poverty rates that are 75% of ours.

·      U.S. students in schools with 10% or less poverty are number one country in the world.

·      U.S. students in schools with 10-24.9% poverty are third behind Korea, and Finland.

·      U.S. students in schools with 25-50% poverty are tenth in the world.

·      U.S. students in schools with greater than 50% poverty are near the bottom.

·      There were other surprises. Germany with less than half our poverty, scored below the U.S. as did France with less than a third our poverty and Sweden with a low 3.6% poverty rate.

·      Having recently listened to Sir Michael Barber talk about the amazing progress of the reforms in the United Kingdom, I was absolutely shocked to see that the UK, with 25% less poverty, scored below the U.S. average.

The Real Meaning of PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid

If the so-called experts would have honestly and responsibly reported the PISA results, we might now be on the road to responsible school improvement instead continuing down the road of "reform de jour."

President Bill Clinton is famous for his campaign slogan, "It's the economy stupid!" When it comes to student achievement and school improvement, it's poverty not stupid! Researchers report that perhaps the only true linear relationship in the social sciences is the relationship between poverty and student performance. While there is no relationship between poverty and ability, the relationship between poverty and achievement is almost foolproof. To deny that poverty is a factor to be overcome as opposed to an excuse is to deny the reality that all educators, human services workers, law enforcement officers, medical professionals and religious clergy know and have known for years.

PISA reports average scores. The problem is that the U.S. is not average. While the U.S. is the top country in global competitiveness, we also have the highest percentage of students living in poverty and, regretfully, poverty impacts test scores.

To Secretary Duncan, poverty is not an issue that educators must address. At least he won't admit it in public. Apparently, he wants to take away all the excuses from teachers and principals. When I met with Duncan, I asked him if he had read the book or seen the movie, Blind Side. He indicated that he had and that he had enjoyed it very much. I reminded him of the pride and sense of accomplishment felt by the teachers in the private school attended by Michael Oher. In their minds, they had performed a miracle. I pointed out that, in high-poverty schools, a Michael Oher is the average student. In schools like ours we have hundreds of students like Michael Oher who depend on our school for everything including food, clothing, and emotional support.

The Bottom Line

School improvement is not an event. It is an ongoing process that has no end. As a principal, parents and community members would repeatedly ask me, "When can we stop our comprehensive school-wide literacy initiative? I would answer, "We will stop emphasizing reading, writing, thinking and speaking when our parents repeatedly complain that their children are reading too fast with comprehension that is too high and when our students' writing skills are so superior that they are regularly winning Pulitzers and other literary awards." Smiles would erupt throughout the audience. They got it. They understood that literacy skills can always be improved and so can our schools.

There are three compelling reasons why we must improve our schools:

1. We have a moral and ethical obligation to provide every student with the best education, the kind of education that we would want for our own children.
2. In a knowledge economy, the country with the best-educated populace will have the highest standard of living.
3. Every dropout as well as every graduate who is not prepared for at least some post-secondary education and training is and will continue to be an economic and social burden on their local community and on this nation for their entire life.

The challenge of ensuring that each and every student is a life-long learner prepared to contribute in a global community is daunting enough. We don't need more hyperbole, particularly from those education insiders who should know better. For those of us who are deeply committed to improving the performance of every student, this rhetoric is counterproductive because it seriously erodes our ability to hire teachers, obtain resources, and gain the confidence and support of our communities.

We count on our leaders to provide focus and direction. Sadly, our education leaders don't trust us enough to tell us the truth. The problem is that we will never solve a problem that our leaders refuse to admit even exists. The comparison of PISA scores by poverty clearly identifies our strengths and challenges as a nation. Our schools with less than 50% poverty) are some of the best in the world. Our extremely high-poverty schools, with over 50% poverty, are among the poorest performing internationally.

Instead of labeling all schools as failing, we must find a way to raise the performance of our students in under-resourced schools. Instead of looking to low-poverty countries like Finland for direction, we should be looking to take what we already know about educating students in high-performing, high-poverty schools like our Breakthrough Schools and scaling up their successes across the nation. We continually look for gold in other countries when, all along, we are sitting on Acres of Diamonds.

Truthfully, you and I know all too well that Secretary Duncan, who led schools in Chicago, is aware of the relationship between poverty and student achievement, but he doesn't trust us enough to tell us the truth. He is afraid that we will use poverty as an excuse and that we will forget about our disadvantaged students. Ironically, by not acknowledging poverty as a challenge to be overcome, Duncan is forgetting about our disadvantaged students. Duncan needs to deliver the message that all our students deserve not only access to an education, but access to an excellent education. He needs to repeatedly remind us that, when it comes to school improvement, it's poverty not stupid.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Imagine a principal and a high school with strong academic credentials. Together over the past few years they have demonstrated significant improvement in state mandated standardized tests.  The motives of the principal have never been in question. Teachers in the school feel that the principal “really cares about kids and has a great big heart for them.” How does a school like the one described above end up in “The Washington Post”, not because it has a team that is competing for a state championship, a teacher nominated for a national award or a student body raising record amounts for charity, but due to grading policy changes?   The principal’s odyssey began with an October announcement that he had banned the use of the letter “F” on first quarter report cards.  Within days it continued with a memo that announced another new initiative at the school—penalty free retests for students who had been caught cheating.   The media nightmare hopefully ended when an email was sent to the community stating that all of the programs had been cancelled. All of these policy changes were carried out in the full glare of the media.  There was even an editorial that referred to the new grading policy as a “gimmick”.  The most glaring problem, however, was not the specific proposals but rather a faulty vision of school leadership.    

 A failure to communicate

The main culprit in this episode was a fundamental lack of communication between the principal and his staff.  One person, regardless of his position, cannot make decisions as precedent shattering as allowing unlimited incompletes and retests for cheaters without significant input from a wide variety of individuals.  Any hope of an effective implementation is lost when such changes are announced with no advance notice or discussion.  Using email weeks into the school year raises more questions about the style of a leader when the conversation should be on the substance.

There is far more at stake for this principal than merely the rollback of his initiatives.  Successful leadership is predicated on vision, communication and the respect of your constituency.  In the world of sports, most coaches who are fired are indicted with the statement “they lost the locker room”.  Politicians are voted out of office when public confidence erodes in their ability to lead.  The principal in question here is in a similar position.  By failing to effectively communicate with his faculty and community he is placing their loyalty and support in jeopardy.  

A critical requirement

For principals to avoid this situation they must bring their faculties into conversations in the planning stages.  The desire to limit the number of students receiving a grade of “F” is not only noble; it is a shared pursuit by both the administrative and teaching staffs.  Though a solution may be elusive, an effective timetable to address this problem would be easy to construct.  A diverse committee of teachers, administrators and parents could have been convened in March.  Lively and informative discussions would ensue for two months.  In May a proposal would be presented to the faculty.  After encouraging discussion and further input another committee would finalize the wording over the summer.  A formal plan would be sent to all staff members several weeks prior to the opening of school with a notation that it would be the focal point of a faculty meeting during the in-service week. 

This plan will not work unless the principal is committed to ensuring that all of these conversations are open, honest and ongoing.  Everyone who is contributing ideas must believe that their opinions are being given substantial consideration.  This path is not about “safety in numbers” or “seeking cover”.   The key element is that involving the views of the people directly affected by a decision is always beneficial.  Ultimately the teachers will be the individuals who will be on the front lines using any such new proposed policies.  Roadblocks will develop unless the parents understand and support the changes.  

A formula for success…and support

Such an approach is neither simple nor easy.   No leader is completely comfortable when relinquishing significant control. But making that strategic decision will produce more accurate information and a smoother implementation. It will also enhance staff morale and the image of the school in the community.  Clearly this approach is vastly superior to having the arguments, accusations, and finger-pointing playing out in the Washington Post.   

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:43 PM | Permalink

Guest blogger: Bob Farrace, NASSP Senior Director for Communications and Development

Typically, educational technology documents don’t make much of a splash outside of the educational technology community. The final National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) released earlier this month is the exception. Unlike so many educational technology documents that romanticize new tools for narrow tasks, the NETP is so much more about education than technology. The plan proposes a new model of learning enabled by technology but driven by the student’s individual educational needs. Language of personalization and engagement and student empowerment are a familiar echo of the Breaking Ranks framework that NASSP has promoted for the past 15 years. So this might be just the opportunity school leaders need to shatter the ed-tech echo chamber and join—perhaps even lead—the conversation about technology as a transformative force that enables and accelerates the attainment of educational goals to which we have aspired for years.

The plan comes at an opportune time. At last count, 43 states are poised to adopt Common Core standards, complete with technology-enabled assessments—a key element of the NETP. Prior to taking the assessments, though, students will benefit from a likely new explosion of open educational resources, or OERs, whose development will be focused by the Common Core. The new model of learning requires access to these new multiple resources—not just content, but teachers, mentors, and learning communities.

Certain new realities might push us this direction, ready or not. A recent National Coalition for Teaching and America’s Future report details one reality that boils down to this: Boomers are leaving the teaching profession more quickly than we can replace them, and half of those new teachers leave the profession within five years. If we plan to hang on to the industrial-era model of replacing an outgoing body with a new (and cheaper) body, we might as well ring the crisis alarm now. We’re not going to recruit our way out of this one. Otherwise, we can take the opportunity to remodel the teaching profession along the lines, for instance, of the NETP “connected teaching” model, in which teachers act less as content delivery agents and more as superconnected conductors of the various content sources and learning networks that contribute to the student’s education.

The NETP is a rich document with big aspirations for transforming the learning enterprise. Its success will require the coordinated efforts of everyone with a stake in schools. And we have a 2015 deadline to pull it all together. So there’s a new urgency for principals to do their part and take a crucial first step: Create the conditions for connectivity in schools. First, this presumes all kids can access connectible devices—one small part of the infrastructure overhaul NETP calls for. Schools with 1-to-1 laptops or other mobile learning devices (MLDs) are the exception, so the norm remains students who occasionally visit the computer lab or wait their turn to use the classroom computer. Such access is not nearly enough to fulfill the NETP aspirations, yet principals can reallocate their small discretionary budgets only so far. Thankfully, there are a number of favorable precedents—the state of Maine, in fact, even figured out how to institute a 1-to-1 policy statewide. So we’ll be keeping an eye out for the policies and funding sources that will replicate that success throughout the nation.

In the meantime, principals can prepare for the advent of MLDs by beginning the crucial conversation about connectivity. NETP will see no progress while we continue to debate if schools should give students (and teachers) access to social networks and other Web 2.0 tools. They should. They must. Now. Some schools have figured out how to make it happen without the CIPA police tapping at their doors. And while some potential dangers are real, frameworks are emerging for principals to lead stakeholder conversations that set expectations for responsible use of social media and accountability for misuse. (Here’s one, to get you started. And NASSP will continue to identify and share them.) Those conversations are overdue. And the only real investment is the decision by an enlightened leader to make the conversation a priority.

What are the other ways principals can prepare now for the NETP to get traction in schools?

Posted by Bob Farrace at 01:19 PM | Permalink

Since Confucian times, China has adhered to a series of examinations that determined social and career advancement. Today, just as their predecessors did a thousand years ago, Chinese students prepare their entire lives for a series of examinations called "gaokao" that will ultimately determine their future. However, China may be moving away from that age-old model.

According to Newsweek, Chinese leaders are responding by moving education policies increasingly to focus on developing creative thinkers.

As one report points out "in the American education system, reformers are pushing the country toward a more test score-based model, with scores dictating how funds are doled out, how teachers are evaluated and more. Reformers in Los Angeles, New York City and other American cities have pressed for the "valued-added" system, ranking teachers based on their students' achievements on tests.

Newsweek reports, "When faculty of a major Chinese university asked [Professor Jonathan] Plucker to identify trends in American education, he described our focus on standardized curriculum, rote memorization, and nationalized testing. "After my answer was translated, they just started laughing out loud," Plucker says. "They said, 'You're racing toward our old model. But we're racing toward your model, as fast as we can.'"

The Bottom Line

Well-intentioned policies sometimes have unintended consequences. Perhaps it is time that we move forward instead of reinventing the past?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I would like to hear from The Teacher Leader on this issue, but one veteran teacher believes that, instead of uniting teachers into communities of learners, the testing culture is actually dividing them into warring factions, pitting teachers in core courses against teachers in elective courses.

• "Tested teachers like me carry a grudge on their shoulders, rightfully convinced that we’re bearing the brunt of today’s accountability culture. 
• Teachers in untested subjects carry a grudge on their shoulders, rightfully convinced that their work is marginalized by a system that cares little for any kind of learning or expression that can’t be measured by a test.
• Faculties are divided, and divided faculties are rarely effective at ensuring student success."

The Bottom Line

Rather than act as though this schism does not exist, we, as school leaders, need to acknowledge that high stakes accountability has created a division of among the teaching staff.  We need to discuss this openly with our teachers.

The absence of a clear vision and a common focus can exacerbate these divisions. Our vision and focus must emphasize the roles that every staff member plays in raising student achievement.

As our school-wide literacy initiative evolved, each teacher came to understand that he or she played a key role in improving the literacy skills of each and every student. We knew that our English teachers simply could not do it alone. We emphasized the need for teachers to work together toward a common vision and focus--one that could be articulated by every teacher.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:36 PM | Permalink

A recent Washington Post article caught my eye and elicited a strong reaction from The Teacher Leader. When I saw the title "Taking Fs off the grade book," I knew that what followed would be trouble. I know because I have been there.

Through years of practice, I learned that a school's grading policy is one of the most difficult issues to address. Why? Grading is more about core beliefs than about following a procedure. A teacher's philosophy of grading reflects the teacher's beliefs about human nature and how students are motivated. In fact, one of our favorite interview questions for prospective teachers was to ask about their philosophy of grading. Their response told us more about them than just about any other question we asked.

In addition, everyone has attended school and has received grades. So, everyone has an opinion about grading. When you seek to change the grading policy, you will only here from the parents who received good grades when they were in school.

You will also hear complaints from your best students. They have learned the system and they follow the rules. They will not appreciate others being "rewarded" for not following the rules.

In other words, changes in grading practices will most likely be resisted by your most involved parents, your best teachers, and your highest performing students.

Grading is a cultural issue and cannot be properly addressed by simply changing policies. Grading policies are a cultural indicator. Culture changes require collaboration and the involvement of all stakeholders.

Changing grading policies won't change mindsets. Teachers who believe that students are motivated by fear of failure will grade accordingly as will teachers who believe that students are intrinsically motivated to learn. Teachers who believe that students either "have what it takes" or they don't, will continue to sort students for success. Instead of giving Fs, they will give Ds--a rich man's F. Conversely, teachers who believe that work and effort create ability will seek to raise every student to high levels of achievement.

In our school, we talked about grades for years, but when our teachers were allowed to take complete ownership of student success, grades ceased to be a major issue. I vividly remember a student being asked by a visitor to our school, "What is different about this school?" The student responded, "In this school, the teachers won't let you fail. They never give up on you. They make sure that you learn. They want you to do well."

Memos don't change culture

If what you want in your school is a culture of success in which every student expects and is expected to succeed and to achieve at high levels, then declaring "no more Fs" is not the solution.

Changes in school culture take years and many, many conversations. Memos won't change culture.

Start with data. Present the data on student grades to your school improvement team and begin the conversation. Make teachers a part of the solution. Memos aren't solutions. Teachers don't take pleasure in failing students. If they knew the answer, they would already be using it.

When leading change efforts, start small and work with the willing. Otherwise, you will be spending most of your time on damage control.

Treat your school as a laboratory. Encourage the school improvement team to find a group in your school that would be willing to try out a new method of grading. Let them work out the kinks and let them present their findings to the faculty.

The Bottom Line

Trust your teachers and partner with them to build a supportive school culture. Remember, this is "our school," not "my school."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Little children do it all the time.  When playing “hide and go seek” they cover their eyes with their hands and firmly believe they have become invisible.  When my grandchildren do this I find it adorable.  When a school does the educational equivalent in order to make failing grades disappear I am not amused.  But just such a plan is being implemented at a large suburban high school (2,000 students) in the Washington D.C. area.  According to Donna St. George in the Washington Post:

“The dreaded F has been all but banished from the grade books (at this school). The report cards that arrived home late last week showed few failing grades but instead marks of "I" for incomplete, indicating that students still owe their teachers essential work. They will get Fs only if they fail to complete assignments and learn the content in the months to come.”

The plan, which was announced in a letter sent to the parents in October of the current school year, places all of the pressure for implementation squarely on the classroom teacher.  Ms. St. George continues:

“Now, the thinking goes, learning will trump grading. The emphasis is on what students know. Teachers, working as a team, will be on duty more afternoons and Saturdays. They will be mentors, too. If students fail to finish work to clear up "incompletes," they may have to attend a last-chance summer session.”

By some measures the program is already a huge success.  At the end of the first grading period there were virtually no failures at the school.  On the other hand there were 600 scores of “I”. One sophomore English teacher reported more than half of her students were in such a status and added, "I don't believe it's an extra chance. It's an out. The root problem is motivation. The root problem is not that we're not teaching them."

Bring on the talking heads

One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion is the clarity of the battle lines.  In the article the primary sources of opposition came from students, teachers and parents.  In fact, not a single member of any of those groups offered up a supporting voice.  The advocates were the school’s principal, the district’s superintendent for instruction and a series of outside advisors whose credentials are listed as “grading experts”. Perhaps the most intriguing and disturbing endorsement came from the district instructional leader.  He said “If we really want students to know and do the work, why would we give them an F and move on? . . . I think the students who are struggling should not be penalized for not learning at the same rate as their peers.”  The first part of his statement is an insult to teachers.  Educators do not issue failing grades to students and then simply “move on”.  When asked which of their students receive the most time and energy any teacher will respond “the weakest”.  The second part of his comment is both misguided and ironic.  The issue being addressed is missed assignments not a lack of time.  His concern with time is particularly baffling since this individual is part of the establishment that was adamantly opposed to the double block classes that were implemented at my former school.

Let me count the ways

I would like to present my concerns with this policy in the form of a list of the most flagrant flaws.

This policy demonstrates a lack of understanding of adolescents.   A large number of students will do the right thing. Unfortunately these are not the individuals who are the focus of this discussion.  For far too many teenagers an announcement at the beginning of the year that late work will be accepted with no deadlines or grade repercussions is an open invitation for very bad decision making.  By nature human beings are procrastinators (check out the post office on April 15th); for many high school students such behavior is an art form.  What these adolescents need for success is structure and rules not vague requirements and inappropriate rewards. 

This policy will place teachers under enormous pressure.    Successful students will also present uncomfortable decisions for teachers.  One component of the policy is that if students “master” material a teacher has the “discretion” to assign a “NM” (no mark) for missing quizzes or assignments.  Due to this administrative directive students can now lobby teachers to disregard missing work without penalty.

This policy will cost schools good teachers.   A plan that enables students to submit unlimited amounts of late work at any time during the school year is a formula for turning a teacher’s job into a bureaucratic nightmare.  In this brave new educational world our best and brightest will no longer be able to set firm deadlines on required work.  They will be denied the ability to give inferior work appropriate grades.  Instead of using time to lesson plan and work with all students, they will be mentoring intractable students after school, Saturdays and in the summer.  Would it surprise anyone if they departed for other opportunities that would better utilize their talents?

This policy is unfair.  While I do not know all of the intricacies of the plan it would appear that students who do all of their work at a 58% level (setting 60% as passing) will receive an “F” while those who do little or nothing will be given an “I”.  Likewise, those who do reasonably good work but because of one or two missed assignments have an aggregate grade of “C” will have that mark on their report card while students who would fail because of the same missed work will have the “I”. 

This policy will ultimately hurt student performance.   Information learned in the first quarter of the school year is the foundation for what will be taught in the second.  This sequence continues throughout the course.  Classes move forward every day.  It is disingenuous to imply that by giving a grade of “I” that all that needs to be done to remain on track to succeed is to complete a few missing assignments.  While those issues are being retroactively addressed, students will fall further and further behind.   

This policy ignores that quarter grades are only guidelines. The only grades that appear on a transcript are the ones given at the conclusion of a course.  Consequently an “F” on a report card is designed to serve as a warning to students and parents that if the current level of performance continues there is a strong possibility of failing the course.   A grade of “I” can convey a very different and inaccurate message. There are a few other questions that spring to mind.  What is the plan for senior semester grades if they have grades of “I”?  How is second semester athletic eligibility determined?  How does an “I” work in calculating GPA or the Honor Roll?  But these are minor points when dealing with a school-wide “head in the sand” approach to failing students. 

Students fail when required work is done either poorly or not at all.  The best solution is to demand that all such assignments are done well and in a timely manner.  Downgrading the importance of such efforts by extending or deleting deadlines may ultimately create an artificial reduction in the number of failures but it will not create more learning.     

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"If you want me to cook the meal, let me shop for the groceries."--Bill Parcells

I was standing in a high school cafeteria the other day and the principal and I were talking with a teacher who was discussing the firing of the head football coach at a neighboring high school.

"I wonder if they are going to let the new coach pick his staff? How can they hold him accountable if they (school system) choose his coaches?"

I responded, "You just described what it is like to be a principal! You have little control over who is on your staff and you are held personally accountable for their performance, even if they do not want to work for you."

His expression immediately shifted to amazement. "I never thought about it that way."

I replied, "I thought about it every day!"

Note: Not only can't principals pick their staff, but they are often forced to take staff--teachers and administrators--from other schools. In my district, this happened every year to new principals. Before the new principal came on board on July 1, the school system would transfer under-performing teachers and administrators into the school and then tell the principals that they had to raise test scores or be replaced.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The problem with driving around in circles is that while you put a great deal of mileage on the odometer, you end up right back where you started.  For many of the math students in Montgomery County, MD, that now seems to be the case.  After years of striving to increase the percentage of students taking Algebra 1 prior to high school, the educational leaders in that district are having some serious second thoughts. This rethinking was on full display in an article by Michael Birnbaum in the Washington Post:

“Montgomery County long has pushed its students to take ever-more-challenging math at ever-younger ages. Now educators will back off in the hope that more time and depth with the basics will yield payoffs in high school and beyond, school officials said Thursday.”

Frieda Lacey, Deputy Superintendent was even more specific. “Some students were placed in classes, and perhaps they weren't as prepared as they should have been.”  Ms. Lacey added that the push by the county for math acceleration had been an “overreaction”.

Most of these changes are the result of the work by a panel of parents, educators and researchers who studied the math program in the county.  Birnbaum writes, “The report said that efforts to increase access to high-level classes ‘effectively removed sorting and selecting practices based on assumptions about ability,’ meaning that too many students were being accelerated routinely.”

If only they had listened

Teachers and parents initiated this new perspective--opposing rushing students into Algebra 1.  According to Birnbaum, “The change comes as high school teachers were increasingly saying that even their advanced students were arriving in class unprepared. Parents wondered why their children needed to take advanced classes that often required outside tutoring. School officials said more than half of fifth-graders are taking sixth-grade math or higher.”

There is actually a simple explanation as to why schools find themselves with this dilemma.  The main advocates for accelerating math were district educational leaders with scant if any input from teachers.  In 2005, I sat in a district K-12 math department chair meeting and sighed as I heard the system’s math coordinator proudly tout in a power point “The District’s goal is to have 100% of our students take Algebra 1 by the eighth grade.” Based on my lunch conversations with my colleagues that day I can report that the teachers sitting in that room did not share this enthusiasm for the plan.  Of course no one had ever asked for their thoughts on the proposal.

If someone had solicited that advice they would have heard exactly the same comments that are now being spoken five years later in Montgomery County.  For years school districts throughout the country have had an overly simplistic solution for lagging math performance—place younger and younger students into courses entitled Algebra 1.   The advantage of this approach when compared with the revised path now being considered by MCPS, which includes putting more rigor into elementary and middle school math and more careful recommendations, is that it is far less complicated and nuanced. 

It is much easier to implement an “every student in our district will be enrolled in Algebra 1 before high school” policy and makes for a much catchier sound bite. It is important to note that the concept of advancing students in math is not the flaw in this plan.  There are, of course, a significant number of students who should be taking more difficult classes earlier.  Preventing them from accelerating their math studies would be wrong.  But for those who are not appropriately prepared either in terms of background or maturity, the primary outcome of this “sink or swim” approach is academic drowning.  Unfortunately, this experience leaves most of these individuals with a negative attitude toward math and in some cases school in general which will limit their success in future courses. 

In addition classes with many students who are not academically prepared results in an inferior course for everyone.  For many years our feeder middle school placed the top 50% of the eighth grade into “honors” Algebra 1.  The bottom half would take the class in the ninth grade.   Despite what was a huge disparity in mathematical talent, the scores of the two groups on identical Algebra 1 Standards of Learning (SOL) exams were statistically the same (472 vs. 469).  Not surprisingly just as was found in Montgomery County, many of these “honors” students struggled in subsequent honors-level math classes. 

Some things cannot be undone

As a mathematician I use data to reinforce many of my educational arguments.  While these statistics can be accurate, powerful and informative they do come with one very large caveat.  Those data points are not just test scores or grades.  Each one represents a student whose future can be predicated on the quality of the education they receive.  The tragedy is that every time one of those bits of information is utilized to demonstrate a tactical mistake in instruction, a child’s future is in peril. While bad policies can be studied, reevaluated over time and eventually revoked, for those whose education has been compromised by such misguided beliefs there is no do-over available. 

School leaders who design their programs to enhance their power point presentations have their priorities terribly misaligned.  Policy makers must remember that, in education, faster is not always better; fancier is rarely more effective; and any policy that demands the inclusion of everyone is almost certainly doomed to failure.  Breathing and eating are required for 100% of students.  After those two, the “must do” list is very limited.  

I applaud the changes that are being made in Montgomery County.  I wish more school districts would put their math programs under such scrutiny.  Unfortunately much of the pain that is being felt there and other places could have been lessened if teachers had been brought into the conversation earlier.  While the information that is received from the front lines may not always be what the people in charge want to hear, it is often the most accurate.  Too many poor educational decisions have been made without the direct participation and influence of teachers.  The victims of such missteps are the students. They deserve better.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Blogger's Note: At a recent meeting of NASSP's Assistant Principal Task Force, Keith East presented each member of the Task Force with a wooden spoon. The spoon is handmade by Maxie Eades, an 85 year-old Master Craftswoman. A handmade wooden spoon is an odd gift. However, I had a sense that Keith had a story behind the spoon, and he did.

The idea of using a spoon as a metaphor for teaching and learning came to mind after two separate and distinct conversations with educators from the international community.

The first was a math teacher from the west African country of Cameroon. When pressed by his American public school administrative team as to why his students were not performing well, he replied, “I cannot feed students who do not wish to eat.”  His statement piqued my curiosity as to what we as educators could do to convince students that they were hungry even if they did not realize it. 

The second conversation was with a British educator.   When interviewed he was asked why was it that students in the United Kingdom were not subjected to standardized testing as often as students in the United States.  His response was, “We simply believe that when students are hungry that they should be fed, rather than weighed.”  While “weighing” students has its place, it should not overshadow the fact that education is really about feeding the hunger for knowledge and enlightenment.

We acknowledge that it is anathema to “spoon feed” information to students merely to have them spit it back to us.  That is not a true teaching or learning experience. However, is it not true that the ultimate goal of all teaching is for the student to take hold of the spoon and feed themselves?

R. Keith East is Associate Professor in the School of Education at Southern Wesleyan University.

                                                                                                Central, SC 29630

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:28 PM | Permalink

"They’ll have better attendance, wreck fewer cars and be more agreeable. All we have to do is let high school students sleep in."

You know a school or a school district is in trouble when the strategic plan follows the principles of the ABC School of School Management--Administration By Convenience.  One of the best indicators of an adult-focused environment, one that is practicing the principles of ABC, is when research is blatantly ignored in favor of current practice. Last year I wrote, "At a time when the focus is on firing principals and teachers, here is an easy way to raise student performance by as much as 10%. Your start time dramatically impacts academic achievement, behavior, motivation, and student engagement. I pointed to a student-developed video that continues to be true "conversation starter."

A reader wrote me saying, "When my family moved out of the DC area, we went from a 7:20 high school start time to an 8:20 high school start time. My older kids had a VERY hard time with 7:20; my son, in particular, had a body clock that just wouldn't let him sleep before midnight. Now, my younger kids handle the 8:20 high school start time with no trouble at all. That hour has made all the difference in the world. If school bus routes are truly running these start-time decisions, then flipping elementary and high school times is perfect. Of course, those parents who use elementary school as a convenient day care would have trouble with the switch--but those problems should not be allowed to override brain science."

Science says, "Let them sleep."

Today, so-called experts insist that schools use research-based strategies to teach students. Those same experts consciously turn their backs on research that would be inconvenient for them to implement.

The consensus in the field — informed by a large Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of American teens — is that adolescents need about nine hours and 15 minutes of sleep a night. Most get less. "Teens are caught in a tug of war between their biology and rules and schedules put in place by adults. Biology is losing."

In Nurtureshock: New Thinking About Children, author Po Bronson points out a number of key scientific facts relating to teens, sleep, and achievement:

• 60% of high schoolers report extreme daytime sleepiness.
• 25% of high school students report that their grades have dropped due to lack of sleep.
• Between 20% and 33% of high school students are "falling asleep in class at least once a week."
• "Children--from elementary school through high school--get an hour less sleep each night than they did thirty years ago.
• Loss on one hour of sleep has been proven to impact academic performance, emotional stability, obesity, and ADHD.
• "The performance gap caused by an hour's difference in sleep was bigger than the gap between a normal fourth-grader and a normal sixth-grader. Which is another way of saying that a slightly sleepy sixth-grader will perform like a mere fourth-grader. A loss of one hour of sleep is the equivalent to (the loss of) two years of cognitive maturation and development."
• Loss of sleep can "impair children's IQ as much as lead exposure."
• "Tired children cannot remember what they just learned."

Over the span of my career, I have heard many a colleague attribute bad student behavior to hormones. However, when it comes to actually applying science to address hormones, adult convenience again prevails. "A Day in the Life of a Sleepy Student," points out that "hormones play a role. Our brains produce the hormone melatonin as they prepare to sleep. Synthetic forms are sold over the counter as a sleep aid. (Mary) Carskadon found that melatonin levels in adolescents don’t rise until about 10:30 p.m. Sending your teen to bed at 10 is likely to lead to tossing and turning but not much sleep until the body agrees it is time. If a child who can’t sleep until 11 p.m. needs to rise at 6 a.m. to catch a bus, that provides just seven hours of sleep — two hours less than the average adolescent needs."

Minneapolis, which moved high school start times from 7:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. during the 1997-98 school year is a rich source of data on the difference schedules make in teen health and achievement. Scientists at the University of Minnesota did extensive research on the effects and found the following:

• Students report fewer signs of depression than peers with earlier start times. Attendance improved.
• Student transfers dropped.
• Kyla Wahlstrom of the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota in an analysis of the schedule change. “Having a later start for the first hour of class appears to enable more students to not oversleep and to arrive at school on time.”
• Academic performance improved.
• Participation in sports and activities remained the same.
• Principals reported fewer discipline issues.
• A reduction in the number of students seeking help with relationship problems
• Parents reported that students were easier to live with.
• Students did not stay up later at night. 10:45 was the typical reported bed time.
• Most slept an additional hour each night.

According to Colleen Shaddox’s story titled “Delaying School Start Times Causes Alarm” , while some schools have acknowledged the science and moved back high school start times, the reason many more have not "lies in a mix of logistics and politics.

The Bottom Line

I spent my first 28 years in education with a 7:20 start time. For my last two years I moved to a school that had an 8:30 start time. I can personally attest to the fact that one hour made a huge difference in the mood of the students and staff. They were awake! If I had the choice, I would never go back to the earlier start time. The argument that I most often hear in support of the early start time is sports and activities. As the Minneapolis study found, student participation in sports and activities was not adversely affected by the later start time. In fact, in my last year, our boys' basketball team won the state championship.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

According to a recent report, the U.S. Department of Education is relying on a revitalized high school graduation initiative, and "betting nearly $50 million that it can help states and school districts find better ways to hang onto students who might drop out and bring back those who have disappeared without diplomas."

Key elements of the dropout prevention initiatives include:

• monitoring of student attendance
• monitoring student behavior
• building “early warning systems” that alert middle level and high schools to the need for early intervention.
• targeting students in need instead of demographic targeting
• emphasis on early intervention at the middle level
• addressing social-emotional needs of students
• bringing back recent dropouts
• identifying social service partners in the community

Early Warning Signs

• 10% or greater absenteeism
• failing a core course the previous year
• a grade-point average below 2.0
• one or more suspensions
• history of discipline problems
• reading in the bottom quartile
• retention at any grade level

Bottom Line

"A marginal middle school student will fail in high school."

School leaders don't have to wait for a federal grant. We know the warning signs and we have the data already available to us. Upon learning the warning signs, one principal immediately identified over 60 high-risk students who would be entering the ninth grade this year. Instead of waiting for those students to re-emerge later in the school year, the principal developed a plan to meet with those students on the first day of school and to provide continuous contact and support for them from day one.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:07 AM | Permalink

In the context of high-stakes accountability, schools must do two things very well. First, schools must have a focus that is so clear and concise that every staff member can articulate it to anyone. Too many schools are fragmenting their efforts and straining limited resources by trying to do too much at the same time.

Secondly, reduced budgets and limited resources demands that schools get the most out of the resources at hand. That means that increasing performance by having each and every staff member work together to help raise student achievement.

In today’s world, a graduate who lacks the skills needed for postsecondary education and training is essentially sentenced to a lifetime of marginal employment and second-class citizenship. Schools cannot reach each and every student working when teachers work in isolation as they did when we were sorting students for success. Reaching every student will require the focused effort of the entire staff.

Working in isolation, the math department can only do so much to improve student math skills in the limited time available. Because science, social studies, math and English texts are written much differently and present the student with different challenges, raising literacy levels of all students requires the efforts of every teacher in every classroom. Each teacher must teach the language of his or her content area.

Since no one has all the answers and every school has its own DNA, we will need to pool our collective intelligence and build our capacity to deliver solutions that are appropriate for our students. Tapping into that collective intelligence requires that every staff member takes ownership of school-wide initiatives and that requires that they have input into key decisions. The kind of top-down leadership characteristic of schools in the past will not realize the requisite level of teacher buy-in. For school leaders, that means working in partnership with teachers and listening to their input.

Everyone Working Together

Because most of our teachers obtained most of their educational experience when teachers worked in isolation and received recognition for singular achievements, overcoming resistance and getting everyone working together is a hard sell for many school leaders. We have the difficult task of convincing our teachers that different times demand different approaches and it is in everyone's best interest to work together.

Who better to talk about the importance of teachers working together than a veteran teacher? In “One for All and All for One—No Thanks,” The Teacher Leader provides principals and school leaders with one of the most poignant conversation starters in recent memory. The Teacher Leader makes a number of important points relating to the impact that teachers have on one another and the need for all of us to work together as well as the consequences of not doing so.

"No individuals in a school are as adversely affected by ineffectual teachers than the remainder of the staff." The Teacher Leader emphasizes that teachers impact their students, their fellow teachers, and their school in either a positive or negative way. Whether they realize it or not, they are part of a team and the team is only as strong as the weakest link.

Poor teachers act to "spread an infection throughout the building." A poor teacher creates classroom management problems for everyone." Poor classroom managers make it difficult for their colleagues to establish routines and high expectations for student behavior. For example, teachers who ignore tardiness undermine their peers who are trying to maximize learning time by ensuring the on-time behavior of their students. "It becomes a far more difficult task for teachers to enforce their own behavioral expectations when similar expectations are being ignored in other locations."

"A poor teacher will disrupt not only their own classes, but all subsequent classes in   courses that are taught sequentially." A weak Algebra I teacher makes life difficult for Geometry and Algebra II teachers.  "The worst case scenario for students is to pass a course with poor understanding of the required material.  These students are then doomed to struggle with all successive classes in that sequence."

"A poor teacher results in students losing time in other classes. Most administrators will tell you that suspensions are more frequently the result of misbehavior in a weak teacher’s room than in a strong one.  But a suspension results in students missing all classes not just the one where the infraction occurred. "

"A poor teacher can wreak havoc with the grading system." Consistency is the key to an effective grading system. When individual teachers fail to maintain high standards or are inconsistent, "other teachers will suffer."

The Bottom Line

Working together to "ensure student success" is everyone's job and perhaps the most important challenge confronting today's school leaders. Building unity of purpose means changing the culture of the school from a focus on individual teachers and their wants to a culture in which teams of teachers focus on the needs of each and every student.

While teacher evaluation systems are certainly important, the key to continuous improvement is not inspection of teaching practices, but, rather, in building quality instruction into the teaching process through continuous, connected, and ongoing job-embedded professional development.

I made a commitment to our teachers. Other than the knowledge of your content area, for which you hold a license the state, I will only hold you accountable for what we teach you. Whatever we expect you to know and be able to do, it is our responsibility to teach you. In return, I ask you to make the same commitment to your students. Whatever you want them to know and be able to do, it is your responsibility to teach them.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:06 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Education has clearly become a white-hot topic.  Recently, NBC dedicated much of an entire week’s programming to the subject.  And one of the most popular items for discussion was the issue of tenure for teachers.  Heated words both pro and con were thrown back and forth. One of the participants, Tom Whitby, stated his adamant belief that if tenure were removed from our schools it would be potentially disastrous.  Although I disagree with many of the arguments he used to support tenure – a topic I will deal with at a later date – my more immediate sense of discomfort was with the overall tone of his piece.

A Chilling Moment

What I found troubling was Mr. Whitby’s displeasure with teachers who express their unhappiness with the current state of education.  He described one comment from the audience in the following manner:

“There was one striking comment however, from one young educator that sent chills down my spine, only to have them go up my spine by the applause that followed her statement. As an educator of 40 years, I was truly in awed (sic) and upset. Her statement was that she did not need Tenure. She only wanted to be evaluated on her teaching and she was confident she would have a Job the next year. She saw no need for Tenure (down the spine). TEACHERS then applauded (back up the spine).”

These remarks would indicate that no teacher should question the value of tenure nor should other educators demonstrate their support.  However, it was Mr. Whitby’s subsequent statements that I found most unsettling.

“The ugliness of this reform movement is in the name calling of teachers by teachers: Public school teachers against Charter school teachers; Young teachers against experienced teachers; Non-Tenured Teachers against Tenured teachers.”

Such statements are both misguided and unfair.  Teachers are not some monolithic group that agrees on every aspect of their profession and are somehow injured if they dare express any difference of opinion.  On the contrary, who better to discuss the proper approach to educational reform (including the role of tenure) than the people most directly impacted by such changes?  More importantly, the concept of teacher versus teacher is not nearly as destructive as Mr. Whitby believes.  The reality is that this confrontation, in a slightly altered form, plays out on a regular basis in schools all over the country.  Indeed, teachers have a highly vested interest in the professional abilities of their colleagues.  This concern is firmly grounded in the fact that, other than the students, no individuals in a school are as adversely affected by ineffectual teachers than the remainder of the staff.

An infection that spreads throughout a building

A poor teacher will disrupt not only their own classes, but all subsequent classes in courses that are taught sequentially.  The worst case scenario for students is to pass a course with poor understanding of the required material.  These students are then doomed to struggle with all successive classes in that sequence.  When this happens due to poor teaching, it is truly tragic. As these students move through the curriculum, they are destined to struggle just to keep up with the other students in the class. The progress of the class as a whole will suffer and competent teachers will face a difficult decision. Should they teach the topics again, resulting in a significant loss of valuable class time or allow some students to be deficient through no fault of their own?  Regardless of the choice, the progress of the class will suffer.

A poor teacher creates classroom management problems for everyone. One of the most common characteristics of an unproductive classroom is weak discipline. Unfortunately this problem can be contagious.  Adolescents do not automatically differentiate between one teacher’s standards and another.  It becomes a far more difficult task for teachers to enforce their own behavioral expectations when similar expectations are being ignored in other locations.  How many times has a teacher heard some form of “But Mr. X allows us to do that”?  Again, more critical class time is spent on problems that should not occur. 

A poor teacher results in students losing time in other classes.  Most administrators will tell you that suspensions are more frequently the result of misbehavior in a weak teacher’s room than in a strong one.  But a suspension results in students missing all classes not just the one where the infraction occurred.  In addition numerous conferences are often the product of such conduct which will also cause more time out of classes.

A poor teacher can affect other class activities. One year a young science teacher had a room adjacent to one of the weakest math teachers in the building.  He once told me that not a day went by without at least one administrator coming to that teacher’s classroom.  He added it was never surprising to find that teacher’s students in the hallways. Whether they were wandering because they had opted to skip the class or had been excused from the room without proper justification, they spent the majority of the time that they should have been learning math, disrupting other classes.

A poor teacher can wreak havoc with the grading system. Consistent grading throughout a building is critical.  Grades influence student class placements as well as the expectations of both the teachers and students.  Any disruption to this process is counterproductive.  The typical ineffectual teacher will assign erratic grades.  Sometimes in an attempt to gain cooperation undeserved high marks are given; conversely, poor grades are often the result of weak instruction or worse, punitive.  Regardless of the direction, other teachers will suffer. 

A needed dialogue

Teachers depend upon the good work of other teachers. They not only have the right but the responsibility to question educational policies, plans for reform and each other.  Teachers need to have a united front on one crucial issue—formulating ways to ensure student success.  Being appalled that teachers do not always reflect a united front on how to reach that goal is foolish and wrongheaded.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

“Districts have to treat principals like they expect them to lead.”—The District Leadership Challenge

It’s October and it is National Principal’s Month. Congratulations, fellow principals! However, I’m confused. Are we actually honoring principals at the same time that the national plan for school reform is to fire principals first and fire principals often? I have heard stories of the preemptive firing of principals just in case their school would be placed on a state “under-performing” list.

In order to accept the authenticity of the current school reform blueprint, which, in every scenario, calls for the replacement of the principal, one must believe that principals act autonomously and that school districts have very little say-so regarding what goes on in a school. In reality, the opposite is closer to the truth. Many school districts are small and lack capacity, and, too often, principals are on their own in their efforts to turn around their schools. A recently released Wallace Foundation study indicates that “collective leadership”— “total amount of influence attributable to all the participants in a given educational system: teachers, parents, principals, district office staff, and community members”—is the key to higher student achievement and school improvement.

Teachers need and want supportive leadership to succeed in the classroom. Likewise, principals desperately need the full and active support of their district leadership in order to improve their schools.

As an SREB report on district-school alignment points out that “A central reason for the unending graduation and preparation problems is the failure of many public school districts to systematically provide the working conditions that well-trained principals need to succeed. Districts have to treat principals like they expect them to lead.”

Principals are being widely criticized for not firing bad teachers, but principals don’t control key personnel functions. The authority to hire and fire rests solely with the superintendent and the school board. Dismissing any staff member demands an often-lengthy due process procedure that some are reluctant to go through except in the most urgent cases. The dismissal process is so expensive and time consuming that some districts take the easy way out and move around weaker teachers. Principals do not have the authority to reassign teachers to other schools.

Principals who bring forward too many dismissal cases are seen as problematic. The same assistant superintendent who complimented me privately for dealing with poor performance commented in front of two school board members that I was sometimes “tough.” I responded, “You sent them to me because you knew that I would address their needs. You can’t come back to me later and say that I am tough.”

The Rubber Room

Almost eleven years ago, our high school was labeled a “failing high school” by our superintendent in a Washington Post article. I remember being compelled to sit in a room in the central office every Friday afternoon for several months with three other “failing principals.” This was our district’s version of the “principals’ rubber room.” The purpose of these meetings was for us “failing principals” to come up with a plan to turn around our under-performing schools. To this day, I don’t understand why our district would ask “failing principals” like us to come up with the solution to school improvement. That would be like a teacher asking her lowest performing students to advise the rest of the class on the best strategies for studying for tests.

On one memorable occasion, one assistant superintendent became so frustrated that she pounded her fist on the table and said, “You (principals) have to bring up your test scores.” Not knowing how to respond to this tirade, we just sat silently and stared at each other in disbelief. Finally, I spoke up. “Tell us what you want us to do and we will do it.” The assistant superintendent leaned forward, squinted her eyes and said, “That’s what we hired you to do, and, if you can’t, we’ll find somebody who can.”

Even though that outburst took place over a decade ago, incidents like that are occurring with increased frequency today. So-called experts, many who have never worked in a school, are demanding that principals improve their schools or face dismissal. ‘We have no idea how to change the culture of a school, but we’re going to fire you if you don’t.’ ‘We’re not going to train you. We’re not going to support you. We’re just going to threaten you and then fire you.’

If they have what it takes

Less than a year ago, I sat in meeting discussing one state’s strategy to turn around low-performing schools. A superintendent from a large district in the state was asked to speak to the group about his strategy to reform his district. His plan was simple and honest. “I hire principals and put them in the schools. If they have what it takes, they stay. If they don’t have what it takes, I find someone else.” By his own admission, this superintendent had no idea what his principals needed in the way of skills or training. In fact, he didn’t have the time to find out. He needed results now! He was simply going to hire and fire until he found the right person.

You are a principal?

When people asked me what I did for a living and I told them that I was a high school principal, they looked at me as though I had just landed from Mars. To most people, being in the mere presence of large groups of teenagers is intimidating. Most parents will readily admit that have their hands full dealing with their own teenagers let alone trying to work with hundreds or even thousands of other peoples’ kids.

We can’t wait for Superman

When I read the resolution honoring principals, I wonder how anyone could actually be a successful principal. In addition to a myriad of responsibilities, principals are being asked to do something that no one before us has ever done in any country--raise the achievement of all students, particularly poor and disadvantaged students, to high levels. And they are being asked to raise student performance by people who have never done it themselves and who, sad to say, have no intention of asking those who actually have.

An assistant superintendent for whom I have much respect once told me, “I was a good principal, but I never raised test scores. You are going to have to and I don’t know how you are going to do it.” Her remarks were honest and supportive, and I appreciated the fact that she was willing to partner with me to find a way to help our school succeed.

More than any other time in memory, principals are under attack, and so are our teachers. We are not the enemy! Threats of punishment and dismissal are not what principals or teachers need to help us improve schools. Instead of attracting us to work in our neediest schools, current policies are driving us away. What we need is training, support, and encouragement.

Our mission is critical to the future of our country and to the future of each of our students. We have a daunting but not impossible task. Success demands that we all work together in a collaborative partnership to improve every school. Why don’t we all admit that we don’t have all the answers and start working together to find them?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:51 AM | Permalink

First, I will give you the bad news boys and girls. Superman and Santa Claus are not coming, at least not to public education any time soon.

Now here is the good news. Everyone is talking about the importance of education. New York Times op-ed columnist, Gail Collins, put it best when she wrote, “Right now, the public is engaged. The best charter schools are laboratories for new ideas. But the regular public schools are where American education has to be saved. We can do better. Superman hasn’t arrived. But we may be ready to fly.”

The Bottom Line

It is up to us to be the hope that our students need. From a high school perspective, we are the end of the line. No one stands behind us to help our students. Without the literacy and math skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education and training, our students will be relegated to a lifetime of marginal employment and second-class citizenship. We are the last and best hope that our students have to lead a better life.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the data. It biases the judgment." – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

It has been argued that teachers should not be responsible for exam results if they have minimal or no input into the process.  When teachers lack opportunities for input into standardized testing procedures, frustration often results. But administrators and teachers do not always see eye to eye on this topic.   This fact was reinforced in a correspondence I received from a regular reader of this blog.   

“Last spring our SOL scores were dismal.  After a few days of remediation by teachers who volunteered to help failing students, the retest scores improved. But because the scores were deemed ‘good enough,’ there was no follow up by the administration.  They never looked at the reasons for the failures in the first place.   Were the failing students from specific teachers; were they from a specific subgroup, gender, etc.?     

I don’t understand why we aren’t studying the results?  Why aren’t we using the teachers who were successful to work with the (other) teachers? Won’t this problem occur again this year?  I know there are poor teachers, but many good teachers have their hands tied when the administration does not want to listen to creative ideas that could improve our scores.”

Understanding the teacher’s view

This is only one of many examples where the administrative and teaching staffs do not share a mutual vision of accountability. Why might that be the case?  Long before there were standardized tests, good teachers wanted to help students learn.  It is the main reason why most teachers enter the profession.  Of course, teachers want to have high test scores which will make them look good on their evaluations.  But the importance of these scores pales in comparison to   the greatest driving force for all excellent educators.   Any classroom failure is a highly personal experience for a teacher.  Each one has a name, a face, and a story.  Clearly these individuals are far more than mere statistics and will cause teachers to spend endless hours of self-examination as to what they could have done better. 

However, there is a strong sense that in many schools there is a disconnect between this view and the one of the administrative team.  Issues that are critical to teachers may be considered simply as a set of boxes to be checked off on yet another official form.  The mindset seems to be that if the results are good enough, we need not examine any issues that may be lurking just below the surface.  Why waste time fixing something that, based on a superficial inspection, is not totally broken?   

Focusing on the individual

Total school pass rates on barrier exams do not give a complete or an accurate appraisal of what is actually occurring within a student body.  An overall pass rate of 80% may satisfy some arbitrary requirement created at a meeting involving people who have never stood in front of a classroom.  But it does not explain why one of every five students did not succeed.  It does not put faces to those 20%, nor does it discuss their now imperiled futures.  It does not identify at-risk student populations, define educational problems, or find potential solutions. However, as described by my reader, it may empower some people to believe that a task has been accomplished and it is time to move on. The failure to explore all data to find important answers is a disservice to both students and teachers.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

“Successful teaching cannot begin until students are regularly attending class.”—The Teacher Leader

Student attendance is the proverbial elephant in the middle of the room when it comes to discussions of school improvement. How can teachers be held accountable for student achievement when students have poor attendance? How can school and principals be held accountable for student achievement when states allow students to quit school at age 16 and/or have weak attendance laws? How can schools be held accountable for student achievement when law enforcement agencies or the courts reluctant to enforce existing attendance laws? Finally, how can schools be held accountable for student performance when they have no resources like school attendance officers to assist in improving attendance.

Upon arriving at my new school, I proceeded to ask our teachers a simple Peter Drucker question. What do we need to do in order to improve? Although simple in structure, this question contains some critical underlying presuppositions. First, we believed that our students were capable of learning at much higher levels. Second, our school needs to improve. Third, our school can improve. Finally, our school will improve.

When I asked the question, I had a number of teachers give me similar answers, but I will always remember what our Science Department Chair, Sherry Singer, said to me. “Mel, our students don’t come to school, and, when they do, they can’t read.”

It was from that simple question and Sherry’s straightforward response that our decade-long school journey began. For it was on those two focal points, attendance and literacy, that we formed our “R-A-G-S to riches” school improvement plan—Reading plus Attendance will result in better Grades and a Safe school. If we can get our kids to school and give them strong literacy skills, student performance will improve and discipline problems will decrease. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? However, in apparent simplicity lies complexity.

A Culture Shift

We learned that improving attendance and implementing a school wide literacy initiative each require massive changes in school culture in terms of mindsets, attitudes, and adult behaviors. I knew from experience that improving attendance had a lot to do with good old fashioned, roll-up-your-sleeves, hard work. Improving student attendance also required alignment between state laws, law enforcement and court policies, district policies, school practices.

Having the right laws and procedures in place was important in the short-term. However, in long-term, we had to build a school culture that attracted students. We had to become a place where they wanted to be. We had to be the kind of school in which each and every student felt wanted and valued. We had to be the kind of school that students wanted to attend and hated to leave. We had to be a school that had to work to get students to leave, not one that had to work to get students to attend. To be that school, we had to provide a safe, clean, orderly, warm and inviting school environment built on quality relationships. In addition, we had to create a culture of success in which students came to school expecting to succeed and knowing that their teachers would not stand bye and allow them fail.

The Role of the State

When Virginia imposed strict accountability measures on schools in the mid- to late- 1990s, the principals met with state officials and made it very clear that if we are going be held accountable for student achievement, the State needs to strengthen existing attendance laws, which they did. Compulsory attendance laws in Virginia require attendance until age 18. In addition, state statutes require schools to refer students to the courts after a prescribed number of days—five.

The Role of Law Enforcement

Local crime statistics indicated that teenagers who, either should have been in school at the time, or who had a record of chronic truancy committed a significant proportion of crimes against property. The principals simply asked the police to, instead of ignoring school-aged students walking around the community during school hours, pick up truants and return them to school.

The Role of the Courts

Principals met with court officials to urge them to impose strict consequences on truants. Judges were understandably reluctant to detain a student for truancy when they had so many more serious criminal offenses to deal with. However, we pointed out to them that if they weren’t willing to detain them for truancy, they would be detaining them for much more serious offenses later. In addition, we pointed out that their current lack of will in enforcing existing laws was actually encouraging truancy. We predicted that, their willingness to take a strong stand, would, in the long-term, result in a significant drop in truancy cases, and it did. Ironically, because the courts were willing to detain truants, in the long-run, they rarely had to do so.

The Role of the District

Principals met with district officials and requested additional attendance officers, a clear district-wide policy on attendance referrals, and a clear policy relating to attendance and grading. All three requests were implemented.

Now we had strong state laws, the agreement of the courts, and district support. Now, that all the barriers were removed, it was up to us. We had no excuses and no one to blame. It was time to get to work.

Next: The Role of the School in Improving Student Attendance

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:30 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Over the course of my forty-year teaching career, which included twenty-six years as a department chair and ten as Curriculum Coordinator, I worked with a significant number of school administrators and district leaders.  This is the second in a series highlighting those individuals who in my opinion were the most effective in their particular roles.  The goal of these analyses is to illuminate those qualities that make professionals in these critical positions successful and maximize their positive influence in a school.

The job of a district-level instructional coordinator is extremely challenging.  It is a role that must weave together the requirements, goals and needs of remarkably disparate groups.  The rules and regulations of the state and district school boards must be implemented and the goals of the system’s leadership team must be accomplished while assisting two dozen different high schools establish programs that serve very different student bodies.  Moreover, all of these tasks must be performed from a position that possesses little actual authority.  But Tom Nuttal, District Coordinator of Math Instruction, overcame all of these obstacles to become a significant contributor to the success of math education throughout the system. 

What attributes made him the most effective district supervisor?

Tom believed that all of his responsibilities were equally important.  The previously defined job description becomes infinitely easier if the component of meeting the needs of each individual school is ignored.  Creating programs that only satisfy state and local educational leadership is relatively simple when compared with creating plans that work in a wide-ranging set of circumstances.  Tom understood and appreciated the reality that every school is unique. He believed that a “one size fits all” approach where every math program is the same could make for wonderfully simplified, impressive power point presentations, but lack the necessary complexity and flexibility to address the educational challenges inherent in a diverse school system.  The less affluent schools were at particular risk in such situations.  Tom strongly encouraged the creation and implementation of a variety of methods to improve student success.  He did far more than simply talk about such innovation.  He helped put into practice a unique approach to Algebra 1 at my school which was predicated on the fact that we had the largest ELL population in the system.  When our program began to demonstrate significant progress he looked for ways to utilize some of its fundamental principles to help other schools.  This attitude was in stark contrast to many others in similar positions who preferred simplistic answers for complex issues.  Tom did not feel that student success should be borne entirely by the teachers, but that sometimes the district’s program may need to be altered to enable those teachers to be effective.

Tom took a pro-active approach to educational change.  Anticipating state standardized end-of-course exams years before their implementation, he created a district Algebra 1 exam to be administered to every student at the conclusion of the course.  This testing helped teachers and administrators prepare for the eventual creation of barrier state exams.  It also served as an excellent measure of student achievement throughout each building and the system.  As is so often the case, the reception for this “extra burden” at the end of the year was less than enthusiastic but Tom was adamant and as a result many students and teachers benefitted years later.  He also realized that technology was going to become a large part of the educational scene.  While others waited for funding to purchase computers, he found creative methods to utilize existing monies to ensure that math teachers were at the forefront in terms of hardware and training.  When it was obvious that graphing calculators were going to revolutionize math education, Tom acquired funding to train large numbers of teachers in the effective use of these devices.

Tom was not averse to challenging the educational leaders in the district.  When the concept of “block” scheduling was being favorably discussed by the system’s policymakers, Tom recognized that such a program could be detrimental for many math students.  He spent countless hours mobilizing discussions that would reveal some of the negative aspects of this type of schedule.  Likewise, when the district was discussing a new set of grading and reporting regulations that would result in diminishing teachers’ control of their classroom grading policies he used many of his department chair meetings to explain the potential repercussions.  His results were mixed.  Block scheduling became a reality but the grassroots resistance to the new grading system resulted in a rollback of these potentially misguided policies.  Win or lose, his first loyalty was always to the success of the students and the integrity of the curriculum.

Tom was a pragmatist. Whether he agreed or disagreed with a district initiative he worked hard to make the implementation as smooth as possible.  My favorite Tom Nuttal story revolved around the block scheduling debate.  He fought the good fight but when it became obvious the new plan was inevitable he swallowed his bruised pride and announced that every district workshop in the future would be ninety minutes in length—replicating a typical “block” thus giving teachers a preview of what their educational future would look like.

Tom treated teachers as professionals.  Every year he would apply for and receive federal grants that would enable him to take large numbers of district math teachers to national math meetings.  These exposures gave educators throughout the system an enlightened view of math education from a national perspective.  In addition such trips to large conventions gave teachers an opportunity to network with each other much as professionals in other occupations do on a regular basis.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:16 PM | Permalink

“We must build a culture nationally where great educators … choose to work with the children and communities who need the most help.”—Arne Duncan

National Public Radio decided to get into the back-to-school spirit, by asking economists about the stories they tell to kick off their college classes.

Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University (and Marginal Revolution) “gets right to the heart of economics.”

You may recall that Australia began as a penal colony. In the 1700s, the British government paid sea captains to take felons to Australia. According to Tabarrok, things didn’t go so well—almost a third of the prisoners died on one voyage and the others were in very poor condition when they arrived in Australia. The conditions were unacceptable and public outrage ensued. The government passed rules, required doctors on board ship, improved food quality, increased inspections, raised the captains salaries, and even tried to appeal “for humanity’s sake,” but nothing worked.

“Finally, an economist (who else?) had a new idea. Instead of paying for each prisoner that walked on the ship in Great Britain, the government should only pay for each prisoner that walked off the ship in Australia. And in fact, this was the suggestion, which in 1793 was adopted and implemented. And immediately, the survival rate shot up to 99%. Here is the first, fundamental lesson of economics: Incentives matter. Before the captains were paid to keep the convicts alive, they had different incentives — "like keep food from the prisoners, and then sell the food in Australia," Tabarrok says. Reward the captains for keeping the passengers alive, and — voila! — they arrive alive. A good social order, Tabarrok tells his class, aligns self-interest with social interest.”

The Right Incentives

Incentives do matter, but, as we learned in the case of the sea captains, we need to make certain that we are rewarding the right behaviors-pay for prisoners walking off the ship not on to the ship. When it comes to low-performing schools, how do we align the interests of experienced teachers and principals with the social interest of improving the achievement of our neediest students?

Rewarding teachers primarily for raising student test scores will have the effect of driving teachers and principals to schools and students with whom they have the best chance of success—advantaged, resourced, middle class, suburban schools—and away from disadvantaged, under-resourced, poor, working class, urban and rural schools.

Even if we do succeed in attracting the best teachers to work in those neediest schools, the already existing resistance to teaching the weakest students, to accepting new, under-performing transfer students, and to teaming in inclusion classes, will multiply exponentially. I predict that routine schedule changes will escalate into full-blown grievances. Principals will be forced to prove that they did not discriminate against a teacher when they placed a new student in that teacher’s class in the middle of October. I better not forget to mention the inevitability of parents shopping for teachers based upon previous student test scores and the chaos that is certain to ensue.

In a Culture of Success, I emphasized that we need to change the culture, which means creating incentives for teachers and principals to work in under-resourced schools including up-front financial incentives, a promise of small class sizes, upgraded facilities with the latest technology, rewards for school-wide performance, and award and recognition programs that recognize teachers and school leaders.

Next: Merit Pay: Are we rewarding the right behaviors?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:40 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, Robert J. Samuelson documented the failure of educational reform for the past four decades.  He presents a compelling collection of data that clearly demonstrates that much of the innovation done in this country has been totally ineffectual.  Some of this information included:

The highly reliable National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) testing scores shows an educational system that is flat-lining.  In 1971, the first year of this testing, the average reading scores (range 0-500) for seventeen-year-olds was 285.  Thirty-seven years later that number was 286.  In the same two years math scores moved from 304 to 306.   A few quick calculator keystrokes reveal that in nearly four decades reading and math scores for our students have improved by a grand total of 0.3% and 0.6% respectively. 

Mr. Samuelson then reveals some surprising statistics.  During that same time period the percentage of teachers has increased by almost 800% when compared to the additional number of students (61% more teachers; 8% more students).  Not surprisingly student-teacher ratios have plummeted.  In 1955 this comparison stood at 27 to 1; in 2007 each teacher on average had fifteen students.  Even the image of the underpaid teacher is a tough sell—in 2008 the average teacher earned $53,230.  While this wage hardly translates into great wealth it is equally far removed from poverty.  Finally, the number of students in preschool has seen a nearly five-fold increase from 11% to 53%. 

Mr. Samuelson closes his argument by stating that the ultimate reason for the lack of improvement is a dearth of student motivation.  Too many adolescents do little work in high school and a significant number need remedial work in both reading and math when entering either a community college or a four-year institution.  And as illustrated by his data, teacher pay, student-teacher ratios, and mandatory standardized tests have scant impact on this shortcoming.  But the writer saves his harshest criticism for those in charge of reform:

“Against these realities, school ‘reform’ rhetoric is blissfully evasive. It is often an exercise in extravagant expectations. Even if George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind program had been phenomenally successful (it wasn't), many thousands of children would have been left behind. Now (Secretary of Education Arne) Duncan routinely urges ‘a great teacher’ in every classroom. That would be about 3.7 million "great" teachers -- a feat akin to having every college football team composed of all-Americans. With this sort of intellectual rigor, what school ‘reform’ promises is more disillusion.”

Changes that make a difference

Mel Riddile and I have written at length about our concerns with the current structure of public education in the United States and potential adjustments that could improve the system.  As Mr. Samuelson has aptly demonstrated throwing meaningless platitudes and feel-good non-solutions has not made any discernable difference.  Significant improvement demands equally significant change.  If there is to be any major advancement, here are four places to start:

Lengthen the school year.  Learning must become a year-long activity.  How many other important, sequential endeavors take a break of thirteen weeks after thirty-nine weeks of work?  Will paying teachers for 240 days instead of 190 cost more money?  Absolutely, but the educational gains both in student performance and the retention and development of the staff will be more than worth it.  How many extra dollars are spent every year due to failure?

Expand the school week.  Use Saturdays for remediation and extra contact time.  Lengthen the school day to eight or more hours.  Remove distractions—athletic programs should become community activities.  Get educational institutions out of the sports business.  The academic standards currently in place to participate could be maintained but far too much educational time is given to these events.  I loved being a long-time football and tennis coach but if we are really serious about improving our students’ academic achievement we must narrow our focus.

Remove poor teachers.  The newest fad for removing weak educators is to fire the entire staff of a school.  While this may give the appearance of progress, it merely serves to rob districts of their competent teachers as well as their worst.  And most of all it does not make anyone better.    Schools with great teachers succeed.  But acquiring the best teachers is only part of the solution.  Other than the recent mass firings, when was the last time you knew a teacher who was terminated for ineptitude?  And how long did it take the system to remove that individual from the classroom?  In my forty years of teaching I saw two teachers removed for ineffectiveness.  And in each case it took more than five years of diligent work to make these changes occur.  What is needed is an evaluation system that improves good teachers and dismisses poor ones in an expedient manner. Great teachers make great schools; bad teachers give unmotivated students credibility. 

Increase the role of teachers as leaders.  Creating school policy should include a significant input from the entire staff.  While the roles of department chairs should be strengthened, all staff members should be given an opportunity to have an integral involvement in all components of the school.  Collaborative evaluations including other teachers should become common place.  A building’s philosophy should bubble up from every part of the culture not trickle down exclusively from the administrative wing.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:00 PM | Permalink

“We must build a culture nationally where great educators … choose to work with the children and communities who need the most help.”—Arne Duncan

Secretary Duncan correctly recognizes that, in order to turn around our lowest performing schools, many of which are located in our poorest or hardest to reach communities, the culture of education must change so that experienced principals and teachers choose to work in these schools. The operative word here is “choose.” What will it take to get the best teachers and principals to voluntarily choose to work in the neediest schools?

At this time, experienced principals and teachers want to work in the highest performing schools. Threats of sanctions and firings are causing experienced educators to literally run from under-resourced schools, where turnover is a major issue. Being a principal or a teacher in a struggling school is a risky proposition. In fact, it can be a career-killing experience, a risk that most of our colleagues would not volunteer to take on given the prevailing slash and burn mentality.

When principal positions open in most districts, the more affluent, resourced schools have more applications than can be processed. On the other hand, when positions open in under-resourced schools, there are only a few applicants.

Recruiting teachers to work in under-resourced schools is a real challenge. Our school had to convince teachers to drive farther so they could work harder for the same pay. Instead of asking applicants what they could do for us, we had to convince prospective teachers what we could do for them. From our staff’s perspective, it was a buyers market and we were the seller.

Struggling schools have far fewer applicants for vacancies than do other more affluent schools in the district. As the years went by and our student achievement and reputation improved, recruiting was not as difficult. In fact, our teachers were such strong believers in our school and its success that they became our best recruiting tool. However, in the early days of our school improvement effort, we had a hard time competing with the top schools for talented teachers. Under the current reform guidelines, schools do not have the luxury of taking years building a reputation that will attract top teachers. The “quick fix” is on.

The truth is that there is a pecking order among the schools and it relates to socioeconomic status of the students and families. I was told by more than one district official that our school never received the kind of recognition that it deserved because no one wanted a “school like that with students like those” to be the face of the district. It simply was “not good for business.” I always felt looked down upon by my peers just as our students were constantly put down by students from other schools because they attended a “ghetto school.”

Threats, harassment, and intimidation won’t change the culture. Changing the culture means changing our behavior by creating incentives for teacher and principals to work in under-resourced schools including up-front financial incentives, a promise of small class sizes, upgraded facilities with the latest technology, and award and recognition programs that recognize teachers and school leaders.

Next: Is Merit Pay the Answer?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:43 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

As everyone knows by now, the Los Angeles United School District decided to publish a list ranking all of the system’s  6,000 elementary school teachers based on students’ standardized test results.  One of the most prominent proponents of the proposal was Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who said that the decision was an excellent way to recognize the best educators in the district.  I and many other people who have made a career of standing in front of students in a classroom found these remarks both troubling and inaccurate.   I find Secretary Duncan’s latest argument in favor of the practice very predictable.  According to Mr. Duncan, “In other fields, we talk about success constantly, with statistics and other measures to demonstrate it…Why, in education, are we scared to talk about what success looks like? What is there to hide?" Duncan added, "Every state and district should be collecting and sharing information about teacher effectiveness with teachers and - in the context of other important measures - with parents."  Unfortunately in an attempt to connect all of the dots to justify this decision Mr. Duncan has used some very suspect reasoning.

Misconception Number 1

The Secretary’s first mistake is to equate the LAUSD rankings to the use of statistics in other professions.  A quick look at the use of data in the most number-consumed vocation, major league baseball, shows the weakness of Mr. Duncan’s argument.  Every day on the nation’s sports pages one can find a listing of the best batting averages, home runs, victories, strikeouts, etc.  However, a baseball fan with even a minimum knowledge of the game understands the complexity of such numbers. They are aware that the player with the highest batting average or the pitcher with the most victories is not automatically the best in their league.  There are a significant number of other factors that must be considered when evaluating MLB data.  What is the quality of the player’s teammates?  For how many years has this athlete performed at this level?  Is this season an anomaly or is it the continuation of years of excellence?  What additional talents does the player bring to his team?  The actual value of a Derek Jeter cannot be measured with a few numbers.  In fact, sometimes such figures are completely upside down.  Several years ago there was a pitcher who lost twenty games in a single season. This number represented the most defeats by a wide margin. Using this singular measure this player would be viewed as the worst pitcher in the league.  But anyone with a basic knowledge of the game knew that was not necessarily the case.  At the time, a strong argument was made that in order to lose that many times, a team actually had to have a great deal of confidence in the talent of the individual. Only a pitcher who was adjudged to be competitive would be allowed to continue to play enough games to reach that level.  Thus a highly negative number, after all is said and done, proves positive.  That statistical disconnect presents a question to be asked of Secretary Duncan.  Would the average L.A. parent understand enough of the subtleties of teaching and testing to make equally educated judgments?  Can a single number next to a name give that kind of perspective?  And of equal importance do the tests measuring student performance have the same validity as the extremely precise numbers used to evaluate a baseball player?

Misconception Number 2

The marriage of the media and teacher evaluations that Mr. Duncan envisions may not end in wedded bliss.  Unlike the Education Secretary, the media is not enamored with good news stories.   Bold headlines are reserved for disasters not celebrations.  This approach was demonstrated in the original article about the release of the teacher rankings by the LA Times.  In a related link to the story was a picture of a teacher in front of a room full of students.   The caption read:  “Over seven years, John Smith's fifth-graders have started out slightly ahead of those just down the hall but by year's end have been far behind.”  While showing the more successful fifth-grade teacher would have been in line with Mr. Duncan’s stated desire to celebrate great teaching, this approach was a demonstration of traditional journalistic instincts.  Consequently, the story becomes a negative for Mr. Smith and his students or teachers and education in general.

Misconception Number 3

Mr. Duncan does not appear to understand the subjective nature of many measurement tools in education.  He may approve of the “one number tells all” LAUSD approach to rank teachers but would he approve of similar methods directed toward students?  Would he endorse evaluating a student’s overall performance with a simple look at the numbers in the grade book?  Or would he prefer a more nuanced approach that takes into consideration whether the student was in an ELL class and had a deficit in English?  Should a long-term absence for illness be factored into the mix?  Does the student have a learning disability or an unstable home life?  If a student transfers from another school with a weak background should some extra time be considered?  Evaluations of students and teachers require different tools but there are parallels.  The data being considered in both cases requires a high degree of sophistication.

Improving education is complicated.

The need to create an evaluation process that identifies the strengths and weaknesses of teachers is critical. Finding a tool that will improve a successful educator’s performance and expedites the removal of an under-performing one is an essential goal.  Creating precise tests to determine student mastery should be a priority.  But the Secretary of Education and other leaders must understand that using public exposure through the media, although easily accomplished, is not the best avenue toward achieving these objectives. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:23 AM | Permalink

“There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequal people.”—Thomas Jefferson

While there may be disagreement about how to improve our lowest performing school, both Arne Duncan and the public agree that they must get better. Ironically, just as the interest in schools is peaking the economy is rapidly eroding any chances we have of turning these schools around.

The reality is that a bad economy adversely affects us all. While we all suffer when budgets are slashed, some are hurt more than others. In education, those students who have the least and who can least afford it as well as the schools that serve those students, are hurt the most. While fewer teachers, larger classes, and fewer resources hurt all students, they devastate schools with high numbers of disadvantaged students. Already high-performing schools are working hard to maintain excellence, but, most of these schools are made up of middle class students whose parents will make up for any deficiencies. Under-resourced schools, many of which are located in the poorest areas of the country, must make double-digit gains every year just to catch up have no backup plan. Many of their parents are undereducated themselves and are working two and three jobs just to survive.

Simply put, our neediest students need the most help. Under-resourced students arrive at school already behind their middle class peers and they rely on us to do whatever it takes to help close the gap. Whatever these students need—food, clothing, medical care, psychological services, social services--it is up to us to provide it. Hunger makes learning more difficult.

We had hoped that the most recent federal assistance could save many teacher jobs. However, according to the principals I have talked to, the money from the emergency jobs bill is not trickling down to schools fast enough to save jobs this school year. It was simply too late. Because states don’t need to spend the money until the end of the next school year, many are holding on to the funds in fear that next year will be even worse.

Doing more with less is quickly becoming a worn out cliché. It is one thing to have a bad budget year, but how many bad years in a row can a school weather. Raising student achievement in the face of massive layoffs and draconian budget cuts is a lot harder than it sounds. One principal I know has had a 12% increase in student population over the past two years while his staff has been cut 20%. Cutting staff in the face of increasing enrollment normally spells disaster. Despite the cuts, his school has made AYP the last two years. However, to make AYP this year, the school must achieve double-digit gains in both reading and math with more students and deep staff cuts. Worse yet, it appears that there will be more cuts next year.

School systems across the country are being forced to make huge, across-the-board cuts—teachers, support staff, maintenance, and technology. Not only will students have fewer course choices, but also their classes will be larger, have less technology, and overall fewer resources.

Some experts will tell you that the only fair way to make these cuts is to make them equally across all schools and all levels. While it is certainly more convenient to manage a budget that way, the fact is that some cuts directly impact under-resourced students much more than they do their middle class counterparts.

For example, one highly regarded suburban school system has decided to make students pay $75 for every Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exam. While I am not contesting the need to make these budget cuts, I know from personal experience that this policy will have little impact on middle class students. However, it will unfairly target disadvantaged students and will significantly reduce the number of poor and under-resourced students who take these college-level courses. Requiring students to pay for these tests will reduce the number of students who take the courses, and will effectively undo years of progress and the efforts of a whole host of teachers, counselors, and administrators to raise expectations and skill levels.

This “one size fits all mentality” victimizes under-resourced students and slams the door of opportunity in their faces. This practice will directly prevent many students from attending college who could have reversed the destiny of their entire family by being the first to graduate from college. For many of these students, not taking these courses will be the difference between going to college and not. For other students, it will mean a loss of scholarship money, which will have essentially the same effect.

The last time we went through cuts of this kind, there was a significant drop in the number of disadvantaged students taking IB courses at our school. As soon as the policy was reinstated a year later, the numbers bounced back. If the policy had been in effect more than a year, the damage most likely would have been irreparable. What took our diverse, high-poverty school years to accomplish was undone in a single year. Our tireless work to improve reading, writing, and math skills in an attempt to prepare students to take advanced courses was undone by this strategy.

The same people who ask if school cafeterias are necessary are the same people who ask how could $75 make that much difference? The fact is that it isn’t that big of a deal to middle class families, but to students who depend on the school for two meals every day, and, in some cases the clothes on their backs, $75 is the difference between eating, paying the rent, and taking and not taking a course.

Despite that fact that our PTA raised money to guarantee that every test would be paid for, we had the same kind of drop in IB course enrollment that we see in applications for federally subsidized lunches when students transition from middle to high school. Ask high school principals and they will tell you that their applications for free and reduced-price meals are about 30% lower than their elementary and middle-level feeder schools. Why? Many high school students are simply too proud or too embarrassed to admit that they cannot afford to buy lunch.

Incidentally, that previously mentioned high school that has experienced a rise in enrollment and a 20% drop in staff now has only one guidance counselor for its 850 students. Now, who do you think will miss the counselor the most, the middle class students whose parents attended college themselves and who can afford to obtain private college-counseling or the under-resourced students whose parents have never set foot on a college campus and can barely pay the rent?

The Bottom Line

School leaders are in the unenviable position of deciding who will live educationally and who will die educationally. Decision-makers who insist that, unless every school has a particular resource, no school in that system will have that resource, think that they are being fair, when, in reality, they are singling out their neediest students and forcing them to compete on an uneven playing field. As leaders, we must make every effort to ensure that the cuts that we are forced to make do not target our weakest and neediest students. We must speak for those who have no voice.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:54 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The interviewing process says as much about the school as it does about the candidate.”—The Teacher Leader

Note: Thanks to the passage of a $26 billion jobs bill to protect 300,000 teachers and other non-federal government workers, principals and school leaders may have the opportunity to actually add or save teaching positions.The interview process may be more important than you thought!

I thought long and hard after I read Finding the Best Teachers, which emphasized the importance of the interview process in hiring and retaining the best teachers. In doing so I arrived at one conclusion. The process of interviewing prospective teachers is the culmination of hundreds of small interviews, not of teacher candidates, but interviews that our staff conducted with me every day.

Every interaction I had with our staff was an interview of sorts. What occurred in those interviews of teacher candidates was the result of thousands of interactions that we had over months and years that cumulatively formed the culture of our school. It was our culture that we revealed to teacher candidates. It was our culture, our beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and commitment to each other that either attracted or repulsed would be candidates. Over a ten-year period of hiring teachers, the staff we ended up with was a direct reflection of our thinking and our mindset.

A school cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. In this respect, the moment of truth for school leaders is the teacher interview process, for the future of our school is determined by the team members we attract and those we fail to attract in those interviews.

Reputation: It’s all we have!

I once had an assistant principal who told me, “the only thing wrong with this school is its reputation.” I turned to him and said, “Our reputation is all we have!” When we interviewed teacher candidates, we kept in mind that they were probably interviewing at other schools. Even if they never ended up working at our school, we knew that the candidates would remember that first impression for a long time and they will not hesitate to share that impression, particularly if it was a bad one. We knew that how we greeted and welcomed teacher candidates as well as who conducted the interview and the manner in which the interview was conducted said much about our school and us. As Teacher Leader pointed out, “The interviewing process says as much about the school as it does about the candidate.”

How do you want to be remembered?

We knew that the manner in which our school approached the interview process would reveal our school culture to the candidate. So, think carefully about the impression you want to make on candidates. Do you want to be remembered as formal and professional or warm and inviting? Do you want to be viewed as a collaborative, cohesive team that shares key decisions or as a top-down, more formal school organization?

Teammate or Employee?

As a new teacher, I was interviewed and hired by the principal. I was introduced to the department chair on the first day teachers reported. Instead of being warmly greeted and embraced, it took me quite a while to gain acceptance and to find my place in the department. Ask yourself, are you looking for a teammate or an employee? In my case, I was hired to fill a vacancy not to be a team member.  If you want the candidate to be a member of a cohesive team, you will want to involve members of that team in the interview process. Yes, you may have to give up some control and the process may take longer, but the benefits will far outweigh the costs. Involving more people in the interview process will increase the staff’s sense of ownership and will help to ensure that the new teacher is welcomed and embraced upon arrival.

The Answer to Retaining Teachers

Teachers who get off to a bad start don’t last long. Some believe that the key to retaining teachers is a quality induction and mentoring program. However, I have come to believe that the solution to teacher-retention may begin with the interview process. Involving future team members in the process of selecting their new teammates will not only increase their sense of commitment, but, more importantly, it will ensure that those team members are committed to the success of the new hire.

Control or Cooperation?

Hiring new teachers may be our most important responsibility. How we deal with that responsibility may tell more about us than anything we say. If we want our staff’s cooperation, buy-in, and a sense of ownership, we must be willing to give up the illusion of control. If we are serious about collaboration, distributing leadership, and growing new leaders, we must provide our staff opportunities for meaningful involvement in key decisions, and what decision is more important than hiring staff.

Involving more people in the process will let the staff know that they are trusted and respected. Experience has taught me that our staff would take more time and be more cautious in hiring a teammate than I would be in “filling a vacancy,” particularly if time is short and we had a number of staff to hire.

Hiring or Recruiting

Real estate is all about location, location, and location. The same holds true for schools. Unfortunately, we can still accurately predict student test scores by zip code. Like most under-resourced schools, our school was both economically and geographically challenged. A vast majority of our teachers lived in affordable housing that was a long distance from our school. Their daily commute would find them driving past a half dozen schools in more advantaged neighborhoods with fewer needy students. We had to convince teacher candidates that the extra commute and time away from their family was worth it, and the best convincers are the teachers in your school. If they believe in what the school is doing, they will convey that belief to the candidate. 

We learned that, in under-resourced schools, we were recruiting and hiring at the same time. Time after time, teacher candidates would tell us, “All the other schools I interviewed with wanted to know what I could do for them. You were the only school that told me what you could do for me.”

The Best Recruiters

No school has too many top-notch teachers. One of the defining qualities of high-performing schools is that they are able to attract and retain the best teachers. Conversely, under-performing schools typically have high turnover and teachers with the least experience. As the years went on, we learned that our best recruiters were our own teachers. Our teachers were so proud of our school and what we were accomplishing that they couldn’t stop talking about it. Word of mouth became our best recruiting strategy. Schools in more advantaged areas simply could not believe that high-quality teachers would want to teach in a school like ours. The reality is that teachers want to work where they are a part of making a difference and they want to work in a teacher-friendly school.

A Teacher-Friendly School

When asked  by a group of visitors, what is different about this school, one of our teachers replied, “I have worked in schools all over the country, but this is the most teacher-friendly school that I have ever worked in.” When asked to explain she said, “In this school, our opinion counts. We get to make decisions like bell schedules and exam schedules. We approve field trips. We are constantly asked for our input. When we come up with ideas, we are encouraged to try them out.” Anyone can create a school culture that is teacher-friendly. It takes no money, but it does take time and effort. The Teacher Leader and I learned through experience that, if we build a teacher-friendly school, they (teachers) would come.

Interviewing is Year-Round

Hiring and interviewing the best teachers is a full-time, year-round activity. Every thing we do and say reflects on our school and its culture and it is the culture that attracts teachers. Instead of change for the sake of change, we must stand for responsible change—change that seeks to improve student performance on a solid foundation of positive beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and a growth mindset.

“Culture eats strategies for breakfast.” In the right culture virtually any interviewing strategy will work. In the wrong culture, the best interviewing strategies are doomed to fail.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:40 AM | Permalink

Have you had a chance to review the new Common Core Standards? How do your state math and ELA standards stack up against the new Common Core State Standards? According to a new report issued by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, many states have a lot of work ahead of them.

• ELA Common Core Standards are more rigorous than the standards in 37 states.
• Math Common Core Standards are more rigorous than the standards in 39 states.
• ELA and Math Common Core Standards are more rigorous than both ELA and math standards in 33 states.

In addition, the report, which provides state-by-state analysis, indicates “California, Indiana and the District of Columbia have ELA standards that are clearly superior to those of the Common Core. And nearly a dozen states have ELA or math standards in the same league as the Common Core.”

Principal’s Perspective

• For school leaders, the rules and the game are about to change.
• For most, the bar will be set significantly higher.
• For those in states with already high standards, the new standards will not necessarily be more rigorous, but they will different.
• If your school does not teach literacy (reading, writing, higher-order thinking, and discussion) skills schoolwide in all core content areas, get ready, because you will. (I will write a separate blog article on literacy and the new Common Core Standards.)
• By my estimate, the Common Core ELA Standards raise the reading requirements for all students by at least two years over the current standards.
• The Common Core Standards are new and by definition schools do not currently have the capacity to teach to the new standards. That means years of job-imbedded professional development.
• Teacher training programs are not yet preparing teachers to teach to the new standards.

The Bottom Line

Principal will again be asked to build the airplane while it is in flight. Expectations will continue to increase in the face of declining resources and more rigorous standards.

Principals will be held accountable for successfully implementing the new Common Core Standards while continuing to raise student achievement even though their current teachers and their new teachers do not and will not have the training needed to teach to those standards.

The New Equation

Higher expectation + more rigorous standards – declining resources – less teacher capacity = Our job just became much more difficult!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:01 PM | Permalink

“No one can choose a world without change. We choose only whether we drive change or react to it.”—Bill Gates

The Washington Post reports that Bill Gates and his Gates Foundation is playing a pivotal role in changes for education system. Gates spoke the American Federation of Teachers on July 10. As you view the video and read the following highlights of his speech keep in mind what we wrote back in March about the national poll of 40,000 teachers to which Gates refers. According to the national survey, teachers want supportive leadership more than anything else. In fact, by a wide margin, teachers indicated that supportive leadership (68%) was more important than higher salaries (45%) and pay for performance (8%).

Gates on Reform

• We have made public schools our top priority in the United States, because we believe -- as you do – that nothing is more important for America’s youth, and nothing means more for the future of the country.
• Despite these efforts, our high school scores in math and reading are flat. Our graduation rates have plunged from 2nd in the world to 16th. And our 15-year-olds now rank behind 22 countries in science and behind 31 countries in math.
• There are a growing number of public schools – including charter schools – that smash old prejudices about what low-income and minority students can achieve.
• There is a new understanding that school reform must include teacher partnership. If reforms aren’t shaped by teachers’ knowledge and experience, they’re not going to succeed.

Gates on Teaching

• There is an expanding body of evidence that says the single most decisive factor in student achievement is excellent teaching.
• the teacher is the one that makes the biggest difference – and that difference can be dramatic.
• The pivotal impact of the teacher does not mean that parents, principals, and administrators have fewer obligations. It means they have greater obligations – to support better teaching. We have to make sure that teachers get the evaluations, training, standards, curriculum, assessments, and the student data they need to improve their practice. And teachers deserve our support and respect as they do this.
• Great teaching is the centerpiece of a strong education; everything else revolves around it.
• The schools that made the biggest gains in achievement did more than make structural changes; they also improved teaching.
• The truly impressive reforms share the same strategic core – they all include fair and reliable measures of teacher effectiveness that are tied to gains in student achievement.
• Teachers said in huge numbers that they don’t get enough feedback. They’re not told how they can improve. They’re not given training that can address their weaknesses or help them share their strengths with others.
• Teachers want to help set the expectations that they will be held accountable for. You want to be rewarded for results. You want better evaluations. You’re tired of subjective, infrequent evaluations by administrators who don’t know how to improve instruction – the people who come into your class and write “Yes” or “No” for things like: “arrives on time” and “maintains professional appearance.”
• But even fair and insightful teacher evaluations are not enough to improve student gains; they have to be tied to great professional development that is customized for each teacher.

Gates on Improving Teaching

• This is the heart of the challenge – how do you set up a system that helps every teacher get better?
• Teaching is difficult. It’s hugely complex. You have to be able to make a subject clear – and also make it interesting. You have to calm the disruptive kids, challenge the advanced kids, humor the bored kids, and reach the kids who learn at a different pace. And you’ve got to do it with 30 students in the classroom – some of whom might be tough kids who want to see you fail.
• If you told me I had to teach 30 students, I don’t know how I’d do it.
• If we leave teachers to learn it on their own, we will never make the most of their talent. If we don’t develop the talent of our teachers, we’re going to waste the talent of our students.
• We can’t afford that. We need to make sure that every teacher can learn from the best – and keep learning every year for their entire career.
• But if you’re fighting only for wages, hours and working conditions, then it’s just teachers fighting for teachers. If you’re also fighting for evaluations tied to student gains and training that makes an impact in the classroom, then it’s teachers fighting for students.
• There are many great teachers in America. Now we need to understand what makes them great, and help all teachers learn from them. This is worth our best combined efforts – because of all the factors that affect our future, schools are the most important. And of all the work that goes on in our schools, teaching matters most.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:20 PM | Permalink

“Innovation for innovation’s sake should not be the sole focus of schools.”-- Mark Berends, Ellen Goldring, Marc Stein, Xiu Cravens

A new study published in the American Journal of Education indicates that too much innovation was “negatively associated with gains” in student achievement. More often than not schools are trying to do too many things at once. When you ask someone in the school about their focus, they give you a long list.

Focus is power

When schools focus on too many things, they dissipate their efforts, and, as is pointed out by this study, dilute the efforts and confuse the staff. Everyone in the school should be able to articulate the focus of the school in twenty-five words or less. Experience has taught me that more than three areas of focus results in confusion.

“Knowing what to focus on and when to focus can spell the difference between success and failure.”—Daniel L. Duke, Differentiating School Leadership, 2010

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:52 PM | Permalink

According to an NPR report, Beach High School, Savannah, Georgia’s only Title I high school has shown marked improvement in the three-year tenure of Principal, Dr. Deonn Bostic Stone. Scores on state assessments have risen steadily and graduation rates have increased from 49% to 66%.

Apparently, the progress made by the school is not enough and not fast enough to keep it off Georgia’s list of schools in need of improvement. However, in order to qualify for School Improvement Grant (SIG) funding, the school will replace Dr. Stone and a minimum of 50% of the faculty.

Jack Jennings of the Center for Education Policy indicates that, if there is a bright side to the current reform efforts, it is hard to find. Jennings warns that the belief that closing schools and replacing staff will improve achievement and close the achievement gap has no basis in reality. In fact, the record is so skimpy that reform seems to be more about cash-strapped school districts chasing federal dollars than it does about actually improving schools. “It is less about improvement and more about money,” Jennings points out.

In other words, the focus is no longer on students and is now on desperate school districts willing to sacrifice the good name and tradition of a historic school as well as the careers of the staff for federal dollars regardless of whether those dollars will help improve student achievement.

Students interviewed believe that the school will get worse before it gets better. “Trust is gone,” said one student. Other students point out that many of the teachers who will be replaced built trust and quality teacher-student relationships that defined their experience at the school. “It will hurt relationships,” said one student.

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, reiterated his desire to have funds reach the neediest schools, but acknowledged that it is the individual states who make up the lists of schools needing improvement.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:14 PM | Permalink

New York City has finally closed the rubber rooms, which were the school system’s answer to dealing with teachers accused of incompetence or wrongdoing. The New York Times reports that “for the last several years, teachers accused of incompetence or wrongdoing have been forced into rubber rooms, formally called Temporary Reassignment Centers, where they receive a full salary but do not work while they wait for the Department of Education or a hearing officer to decide their fate. But in April, city officials and the teachers’ union agreed to eliminate the rooms, which had been a source of embarrassment for all. Beginning in the fall, those teachers will perform administrative duties or be sent home if they are deemed a threat to students.”

According to the Times, teachers were required to report at 8 a.m. and had to be escorted by security personnel to the room where they were required to remain until 2:50 p.m. Teachers could leave the room for a break or lunch but were forbidden to use the lunchroom in the building. What an expensive and demeaning process!

This is how top-down rule-oriented bureaucrats deal with problems. They create programs and develop rules. Don’t get me wrong. Bureaucracies are great for ensuring that the bells ring and the buses show up on time and for ordering textbooks. Bureaucracies are designed to preserve the status quo and to bring order from chaos. However, bureaucracies are not designed to innovate, and the challenges we face in education today require innovation not preserving the past.

A State of Mind

Let me be clear on one point. Bureaucracies don’t stifle innovation, bureaucrats do. Bureaucrat is not a person but a state of mind. An individual can work in a bureaucracy and not be a bureaucrat. In fact, I know quite a few innovative, collaborative leaders who do work in large bureaucracies.

Know One When You See One

Bureaucrats rely heavily on the organizational chart to maintain the top-down style of managing or controlling, not leading, an organization. Bureaucrats are great at making rules and developing procedures, both of which stifle innovation and creativity. Bureaucrats want to evaluate not build capacity. On the one hand, bureaucrats say they want innovative principals, while on the other, they do everything to control and restrict those same principals because that is what bureaucrats are supposed to do.

Bureaucrats raise student performance by edict. While doing nothing to increase student math skills, bureaucrats declare that all 8^th graders will take Algebra I …whether they are ready or not. Bureaucrats unilaterally terminate science programs and then blame the teachers for low science scores. Bureaucrats reactively stop reading programs and fire principals because their state test scores drop. Bureaucrats consistently say that there are not quick fixes, but they are always the ones proposing them. They shy away from the real challenges and seek the glamorous that will earn them recognition and promotion. It is the bureaucrats, not principals and school leaders, who unilaterally decide that 80% of all high schools start before 8:15 a.m. even though research shows that student achievement would be increased by 10% by starting later.

Bureaucrats determine that the best way to reform schools is the create rubber rooms, and to fire principals and teachers, because, after all, bureaucrats don’t innovate, they control and controllers need someone to blame.

Be a leader not a bureaucrat!

1. Focus on student needs and not on adults wants. When the focus is on students the adults usually do the right thing.
2. Trust: Believe that teachers and principals actually have something to contribute to the solution and that they want to help students succeed and that they are doing the best they can with what they have and what they know.
3. Believe that all students can learn if given the time and assistance they need.
4. Throw out the organization charts, and begin to work in collaborative partnerships.
5. Seek cooperation not control.
6. Ask questions and listen to the experts---those who are in the schools working with real students every day.
7. Leave your egos at the door and focus on doing the right thing not on who is right or who gets the credit.
8. Stop blaming and excusing and start learning and growing.
9. Differentiate your approach. Instead of declaring Algebra I for all 8th graders, align your K-7 math curriculum to prepare students for Algebra I by 8th grade and set targets for the number of students participating as well as the number achieving mastery.
10. Lead Change not Chaos - Support responsible change, not change for the sake of change. Have both a short- and a long-term strategy. Real change takes time. The research says four or more years to change the culture of a secondary school.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:38 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In September of 1968, as I prepared to face my first Algebra 1 class, an administrator told me the following, “Since you are the first new math teacher in the building in four years we are giving you all of the students that failed Algebra 1 last year.  By doing that it makes the master schedule easier.”  He then added, “By the way, more kids at this school fail Algebra 1 than any other course.”  And then there was the closer.  “Heck that is true not only at this school but in the entire district and for that matter the country”.

Sadly, though the need for success in high school math is even more imperative in our increasingly technical world, it appears little has changed in terms of the pitfalls associated with this gateway mathematical course.  When taught with the rigor necessary to adequately prepare students for the courses that follow, students continue to struggle. One of the most common prescriptions given by educational leaders is to move the course earlier in a student’s career.  My last post revealed a number of statistics that indicated the shortcomings inherent in such an approach. Now I would like to look at the potential damage that can be experienced both directly and indirectly to students placed prematurely into Algebra 1.

Collateral Damage

Increasing the number of students taking Algebra 1 in the eighth grade will lead to certain expected outcomes.  As this proportion expands there will be a corresponding rise in the number of students taking the class in the seventh grade.  In my former district from 2005 to 2008 there was a 600% increase (120 to over 700) in seventh grade Algebra I students.   While unquestionably there are some students ready for this level of advancement, the danger for any students misplaced in this group is catastrophic.  Follow the natural progression for such a student.  Honors Geometry is taken in the eighth grade and then in their first year at the high school these students are enrolled in Honors Algebra 2.  The biggest obstacle to overcome here may not be the actual math material.  The larger concern is that they have learned their first two years of high school math academically isolated in the middle school.   In their first high school math class, Honors Algebra 2, most of the students will be sophomores who, for the most part, while taking their second high school honors math class, have also experienced a full year of Honors English 9, Honors World History 1, and Honors Biology or Chemistry – courses that are unavailable to middle school students. For students who were advanced through the math sequence too quickly, and not simultaneously taking other honors courses, the sudden surge of academic rigor is too often crushing.

On track to nowhere

Another group of students who will suffer academic problems as a result of the rush to push more and more students ahead in the math sequence are those few individuals who are deemed unable to be advanced in such a manner.  With the ever enlarging percentage of students taking Algebra 1 prior to high school, this small but critical group of students is being isolated into an academic niche from which there is little chance of escape.  While all educators decry the concept of tracking, these students languish further and further behind the mainstream and soon define that principle.  Many of these students are struggling with English, have special needs or are dealing with emotional or physical problems.  Consequently, while the vast majority of students, ready or not, are being pushed into a faster and in many cases inappropriate track, these students are truly left behind, sitting in class with no positive peer role models for academic success, little rigor to improve their classroom skills and the obvious and sometimes irreversible label of being an unsuccessful student. 

The teacher’s perspective

When is the best time for enrolling students in Algebra 1?  Fundamentally it is a common sense solution devoid of percentage goals, rhetoric and the blind belief that faster is better for everyone.  Algebra 1 should be offered to those students who demonstrate the mental and emotional maturity, curriculum background and basic skills necessary for true success in a rigorous, first-year Algebra course.  For a significant number of our students that readiness occurs in the eighth grade.  For a very small part of that group it may well be appropriate even earlier.  But Honors Algebra 1 must be a tough, legitimate course worthy of its label.  For those who are not placed in these classes the courses taught in middle schools should be honed with increased rigor to prepare these students for mastery of the subject in grade nine.  Equally important is that students who do take Algebra 1 early but do not demonstrate total mastery of the course should repeat it again the following year to ensure that they will have an opportunity for success in the future.  Ironically, moving students faster and promoting them without a solid foundation in the fundamentals ultimately forces subsequent math classes to be less comprehensive and challenging. 

Clearly this result could not be the given objective of the school system’s policy-makers.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:43 AM | Permalink

The Teacher Leader just threw more gasoline on the fire. Algebra for all students in grade 8 is a hot topic that will only get hotter. The recent studies that cite Algebra I success in eighth grade as a predictor of college success will only fan the flames of controversy pitting policy makers who want to say that they are raising standards against teachers who want students to actually learn something.

I have some thoughts on the subject for school leaders:

One Size Fits All

Anytime someone in education suggests one approach for all students, I get very nervous. The very same people who want teachers to differentiate instruction in classrooms are the same people who refuse to differentiate their approach to district policy. Years ago, a district leader had the bright idea of eliminating earth science from the high school curriculum because the top university in the state did not consider earth science to be a laboratory course. Instead, all ninth graders would be required to take Biology. Previously, about 60-70% of all ninth graders took Biology, and of course, it was the top students. The logic here escapes me. We were going to suddenly raise the college readiness levels of 30-40% of our students, not by improving student literacy and math skills, but by not teaching earth science. This bright idea eliminated the jobs of hundreds of science teachers, increased the failure rate in Biology dramatically, and did nothing to improve college readiness. Incidentally, the timing was impeccable. Just as the environmental movement was gaining momentum, this school district eliminated the study of the environment. How’s that for meaningful and relevant?

Hurry Up and Learn

We are in such a hurry to accelerate students that we forget to ensure that they actually learn something. One school system insisted that all tenth graders take Chemistry. As an aside, I seem to recall that the U.S. approach to math had been criticized for a breadth over depth philosophy. For a decade the district staff harassed and criticized the Chemistry teachers, who insisted that students needed a solid algebra foundation in order to succeed in Chemistry. District staff believed that the Chemistry teachers were excusing their lack of pedagogical skills until they actually looked at the numbers. Thirty days after a fist-pounding tirade in a Chemistry teacher in-service program in which district staff said, “We are going to raise our Chemistry scores, and don’t tell me it’s the math,” the same people sat before thirty high school principals directing them to take all students who had not completed Algebra I with a C our better out of Chemistry. Why? “Because our analysis indicates that they will all fail the state test. That’s why.” Finally, someone had listened to the teachers. Of course, these people would never admit that they were wrong and that the teachers had been right all along. Nor, would they acknowledge the thousands of students who had been forced down the school district’s conveyor belt so that district staff could brag to their colleagues at national conferences “all of our 10^th graders take Chemistry.”

The Best or the Best Prepared

Without an aligned math curriculum that is designed to prepare students from K-7 to successfully master Algebra I in the eighth grade, all we are really doing is identifying the brightest students not the best prepared.

Screen Them Out or Raise Them Up

I was just talking with a friend who lamented that her high school English teacher did not recommend her for AP English and that she was forced to sit in classes in which a majority of the students were not highly motivated. This individual went on to attend and graduate from a competitive, four-year college. I will admit that I have a problem with arrogant elitists who believe that it is their responsibility to sort the capable from the less capable. This fixed mindset—the belief that talent and intelligence are inherited and that one either has it or does not have it--has and is causing serious damage in our schools and wasting talent that we cannot afford to waste. We need to develop a growth mindset in our teachers and staff—the belief that work and effort create ability and that success is the result of persistent, correct, and deliberate practice.

What Colleges Really Want – School leaders get mixed messages from colleges and universities. I have had two deans of prestigious engineering schools tell me that they did not want students to take Calculus in high school. They merely wanted the incoming students to have a solid foundation in Algebra. This made it clear to me that the admissions officials were not talking with their own faculty. So, here I am trying to get my students to take higher-level math and the colleges are telling them that it is not important. The only problem is that the admissions people demand more AP and IB courses and a more rigorous course of study as a condition for admission.

The Bottom Line

I spent an entire year of my life promoting the idea that our school system needed to double the number of 8th graders taking Algebra I. I want more and more 8th graders prepared to successfully master Algebra I. Notice that I said, “successfully master.” I have been through too many of these “up the ante” initiatives over the years that simply force more students into higher-level courses with no effort made to improve the preparation of the students. Then, when the failure rate increases dramatically, they blame the teachers. If we don’t care if our students learning anything, we can simply declare, like many districts have done, that more 8thgraders will take Algebra I. The truth is that more 8th graders successfully mastering Algebra I will not be accomplished by edict. It will take a lot of work and effort to align the curriculum and to properly train teachers in grades K-7. All students can achieve to high levels if they are given enough time and the proper preparation.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:59 PM | Permalink

Education Week and the Washington Post report that a study of KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) charter middle schools (grades 5-8) revealed “impressive” gains in math and reading scores in half of the KIPP schools studied. Because the study required three years of data, only 22 of 91 KIPP schools were included in the study and half of those studied achieved the impressive gains.

Results

The results of the study indicate that, in half the KIPP schools, for every three years that they were enrolled, students gained an additional 1.2 years in math and .75 years in reading. Experts believe that the math gains are significant.

Here is what you need to know about KIPP schools:

Additional Instructional Time

• KIPP students spend 68% more time in core subjects than their public school counterparts.
• Their school day is 25% longer.
• KIPP students attend school every other Saturday.
• Students attend school 3 weeks in the summer.

Required Parent Involvement

• Students and parents must fill out an application and be interviewed.
• Parents must attend required meetings.

Student Mobility

• KIPP schools do not replace students who move or who leave school for other reasons. So, they have significantly lower student mobility than surrounding schools.
• KIPP schools have high student attrition rates than surrounding schools.
• 10% of the schools have had their charters removed by KIPP due to low student performance.

Mastery

• KIPP schools do not hesitate to retain students who have not mastered course content, and, as a result, they have high retention rates.

Demographics

• KIPP schools have significantly fewer specials education and ELL students than surrounding schools.

A Principal’s Perspective

The ability to select and dismiss students combined with required parent involvement and dramatically increased instructional time may not be applicable to cash poor public schools. However, KIPP schools reinforce a number of key factors that must be present in order to improve the performance of each and every student.

• Clear vision for the success of all students
• A focus on mastery of course content supported by strong literacy and math skills
• A growth mindset that reinforces the belief that work and effort create ability
• The freedom to act in the best interest of their students without district or state interference
• Professional development efforts directed at building the collective capacity of the entire staff
• Alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment
• Defined instructional practices utilized by all teachers
• Flexible time frames provide all students the opportunity to master course content

KIPP schools reinforce two key principles of raising student performance:

1. Given time, all students can learn to high levels.
2. Effort and work raise achievement.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Legendary basketball coach, John Wooden, died on June 4 just four months short of his one-hundredth birthday. Respected by his opponents and revered by his players, Coach Wooden is considered by many to be the greatest coach in American sports history. John Wooden was as innovative coach who inspired many with his simple homilies. Here are a few of my favorites and what they meant to me as a principal:

“Be quick but don’t hurry.” – Over time I learned that we had to have a sense of urgency about raising student achievement. However, urgency is not panic. We learned that it was important to take both a short-term and long-term approach to the key challenges we faced like literacy, numeracy, and improving student behavior. Change is counterintuitive. You have to go slow in order to go fast.

“It’s about what is correct not who is correct.” – Our school worked because no one cared who received the credit. It was always about doing the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons.

“Do not mistake activity for success.” – Throughout the first two-thirds of my career we judged success on activity not on results. The bottom line is that whatever we do must improve student performance.

“Happiness begins when selfishness ends.” – Our greatest strength was the commitment that our teachers had to each other and how they, working together, could make a difference for our students.

“I am a slow learner, but when I learn something, I learn it will.” – “Given time, all students can learn. We came to accept that some students simply needed more instructional time to learn certain subjects. We also learned that, just because a student took more time to learn something, it did not mean that the student did not learn it well. Fortunately for us, the research has verified our faith in our students. Secondly, we learned that we had a responsibility to our students to consistently practice effective approaches and strategies. Rather than move from one fad to another each year, we had the courage to stay the course. We learned one key to success—find something that works and keep doing it over and over again.

“Success is never final. Failure is never fatal. It is courage that counts.” – Even though our school was called a “failing school” by our own superintendent, we didn’t run from the challenge. We didn’t look for excuses. We knew that we had every reason to fail, but, if we did, it meant that the future of our students would be diminished. We stopped blaming and started learning. We learned, as every teacher and school leaders learns, that every year presented a new challenge. We also learned that success also bring about new challenges and temptations. Finally, we learned that we had to have the courage to admit that we didn’t know all the answers, but if we worked together hard enough and long enough, we would prevail.

“It is what you learn after you know it all that counts.” – First, we learned that learning was the job. Second, the many visitors to our school helped us realize that reflecting on what we did helped us learn the lessons over again in another way.

Finally, Coach Wooden always put the team above the individual. We learned that building the collective capacity of our staff was more important than creating individual masters. We learned that, by tapping into the collective intelligence of our staff, we made better decisions, had more buy-in, and spent less time correcting mistakes.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:32 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The idea is deceptively simple.  Place the best teachers possible into every classroom.  Recently we have spent a great deal of time discussing that objective.  An evaluation system that identifies and removes weak teachers while also strengthening good ones has been proposed. There has been a lengthy discussion of what hiring practices ensure securing the best potential talents in the field. But there is one educational policy that continually works to thwart the goal of improving the teaching pool.  The villain of this piece is the practice known as “last hired, first fired”.  Under this set of guidelines when reductions in staffing are necessary due to either budget restraints or lower enrollment the decision is based exclusively on seniority.  This procedure that rewards longevity over talent, checklists over effectiveness, and status quo over student needs must disappear.  While a few school systems have put plans into place that remove this policy (Last Teacher In, First Out? City Has Another Idea) its demise must be universal.  In both design and implementation the practice fails to ensure that the top teachers will be in the classroom.

The Wrong Solution for the Wrong Problem

Making a strong argument against the policy with analogies is simple.  Which is better, the journeyman thirty-seven year old second baseman or the twenty-two year old power hitter with unlimited potential?  How about the undistinguished veteran lawyer or the recent cum laude Harvard Law School grad?  To give any more examples would be easy but extraneous.  What is almost as disturbing as the policy itself is that while the negatives of “last hired, first fired” are so obvious, they have been insufficient to bring about change in most cases.

Mandated staff reductions are painful and complicated decisions.  Since teaching positions cannot be realistically broken into fractional parts, such cutbacks usually impact one or two departments in a disproportionate manner.  Cutting a full position from a single department can profoundly affect the class sizes and effectiveness of that subject area.   It is not surprising that many will view these difficult decisions as unfair and unpopular.  Consequently, there is an unsettling sense that one of the strongest arguments for last hired/first fired is that it makes the decision of who stays and who goes easier.  Just consult the seniority chart, go over to the pertinent column, down to the required row and bingo—the decision is made.  Retaining a policy to ease school leaders of tough choices is not only impossible to support it is demeaning to professionals placed in such positions.  The easy path in education is almost never the best one for students. 

Some supporters of the concept will argue that it is necessary because many principals cannot be trusted to make good decisions in staffing.  The plan is designed to protect teachers from being removed as a result of random “retaliation” or inappropriate “favoritism”.  Teacher unions often use this rationale when arguing in favor of this policy and others that “protect” teachers from similar injustices.  Such reasoning is disturbing, misguided and counterproductive.  If potential unprofessional behavior on the part of a school principal is a viable rationale for keeping this policy, then a much larger problem needs to be addressed.  If true (and I would agree that it may well exist in some situations), then a thorough investigation of the selection and evaluation process of school leaders is necessary.  A principal who makes personnel decisions based on such inappropriate criteria is potentially a far greater source of educational failure than any ill-advised formula for reducing teachers.  Justifying one flawed policy to counteract a defective situation is clearly not the best approach to improving education.

Better Arguments

There are, however, more sophisticated reasons to argue against the practice.  Creating the best possible staff is more complicated than simply getting only talented teachers.  Like any team, a teaching staff requires both talent and chemistry.  When I was assembling my math department I looked at a number of variables.  The goal was always finding a blend of stability with an infusion of fresh ideas, reasonable gender and ethnic balance, a plethora of educational viewpoints, and the ability and willingness to work well with others.  Each year as vacancies would occur; I would study the departmental strengths and weaknesses and then in my hiring plan look to find the individuals whom would best fill those particular needs.  All strict, inflexible guidelines such as “first fired” defeat any such narrative and should not continue.

Extinction by Improvement

The impact of “Last hired, first fired” can be mitigated without being legislatively removed.  It will wane if three critical components of education are significantly upgraded.  Schools must be lead by principals who are true personnel managers.  When tough staffing issues arise, they need to be capable of making the right choices for the overall system.  A staff that understands that this level of competency is the backbone of all employee decisions will be supportive and eventually flourish.  Strong, coherent hiring practices will populate schools with the individuals with the highest potential for success.  An efficient and effective evaluation system will quickly identify and remove weak teachers while improving the performance of its best prospects.   In a building where every teacher is of the highest quality, the impact of staff reductions will be significantly reduced. While there is no easy way to avoid the disruption and loss of such actions, the nightmare scenario of losing a talented young teacher for a far less talented but more senior will diminish. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:38 PM | Permalink

In a recent post, we pointed out that our job is to prepare our students to succeed in and graduate from college. Given the fact that only half of all students who enter college graduate in six years, our vision for our students must go beyond admission to graduation.

The Washington Post reports that Montgomery County (MD) Public Schools is “one of the few systems in the country that tracks its students all the way through college graduation.” Tracking graduates is an expensive proposition. So, hats off to Superintendent Jerry Weast and MCPS for making the commitment.

Montgomery County, located outside of Washington, D.C. is a large, diverse, suburban and inner-ring suburban school system. MCPS data offer principals and school leaders valuable insights into what it takes for a student to succeed in college.

MCPS has indentified “7 Keys to College Readiness.” These are milestones that, if met, indicate that students will not only attend college, but that they will graduate.

The 7 Keys to College Readiness are as follows:

1. Advanced Reading in Grades K-2
2. Advanced Reading on state assessments in Grades 3-8
3. Advanced Math in Grade 5
4. Algebra I by Grade 8 with  “C” or higher
5. Algebra II by Grade 11 with a “C” or higher
6. Score of 3 on an AP exam, Score of 4 on an IB exam
7. SAT score of 1650, ACT score of 24

Principal Pointers

• College admission does not mean that a student will succeed or graduate.
• Meeting state graduation requirements does not necessarily indicate college readiness.
• Reading is the best indicator of academic success.
• Reading is the best predictor of math success.
• Math success is the best predictor of college success.
• A rigorous course of study counts most to college graduation.
• Taking an AP course or an IB course only helps if the students take the exam and achieves a passing mark.
• Rigorous course work means hard work and deliberate practice. There is no easy way out. There are no quick fixes.

A Case Study

39% of Montgomery County students take Algebra I in the eighth grade, which translates into 37% graduating from college eight years later. I can’t help but be reminded of a school system that systematically excludes large numbers of students from taking Algebra I in the eighth grade. This school system, also located in the Washington, D.C. area, has half the percentage of students taking Algebra I in eighth grade as compared to Montgomery County and other neighboring school systems. When I asked them why, they indicated that they had tested and screened the students and only 20% were ready to take Algebra. In this school system students must prove to officials that they are ready to take Algebra I in the eighth grade. This might be acceptable if the math curriculum was aligned and structured to prepare students for Algebra. However, a closer inspection reveals that only students labeled as “talented and gifted” are exposed to a math sequence that prepares them for Algebra I in the eighth grade. So, unless students are in the 5% identified as gifted they are not being prepared for a more rigorous math curriculum. To me this looks a lot like tracking.

Not only are the students in this school system being victimized by low adult expectations, but they are systematically being prevented from taking a more challenging course of study in high school. Some parents refuse to allow their children to be subjected to low expectations. Those who can afford to do so remove their children from the school system and put them into private schools. The rest have no choice. Ironically, the same adults who were entrusted with their care are those who forced these capable children off-target for college readiness.

Something to think about

Our job is not to screen out students. Anyone can screen people. It takes a true professional to raise up all students. Our job is to align our curriculum so that we prepare students to take and succeed in challenging courses.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post Mel Riddile expressed his opposition to merit pay based on his experiences with the process. A comment posted on an earlier Riddile piece stated equally negative views.  Among the shared concerns were that the process did not identify the best teachers, too much pressure was placed on the evaluators, and inconsistency was rampant.  But the most significant issue was the belief that such a system implied that a financial reward was required to motivate teachers to put forth their best efforts. As someone who participated in this process I agree wholeheartedly with these points.

Anyone who has been a part of a teaching staff knows that the concept of a financial incentive being a proactive factor in intensifying a great teacher’s work ethic is laughable.  Great teachers when standing in front of their students never measure their efforts in dollars and cents.  To the contrary, great teachers are altruistic to a fault.  They will sacrifice sleep, family time, and whatever else is necessary to guarantee their students the best possible outcomes. 

Great teachers, however, are human beings and respond to positive reinforcement. Ask outstanding teachers about the most memorable moments in their careers and they will inevitably refer to letters or visits from former students who expressed gratitude for the impact the class had made in their lives.  These stories of interpersonal success are an inspiration that no financial incentive could supersede.

But while the public may misinterpret the motivation of merit pay, I do, however, strongly disagree that a program of merit pay cannot be successful. What is necessary is a system that gives recognition to outstanding teaching while incorporating financial incentives.  Such a plan would necessitate the blending of several concepts into a single entity.  This program would require an evaluation process that provided educators with a precise measurement of their work, a clear profile of each individual school and a reward system that would improve the learning environment at selected locations.

First Evaluate the Teachers

The best way to eliminate some of the fundamental flaws inherent in the typical merit pay plan would be to separate the evaluation from the money.  The process would begin by using a refined, precise evaluation method to assess the performance of each member of a school’s teaching staff.   Previously, there has been a lengthy discussion of the importance of creating a system of evaluation that will eliminate weak teachers and strengthen good ones.   (“Finding the Right Measuring Stick”)  The world of education is extremely quantitative.  All students routinely receive numerical assessments of their performance on virtually every piece of work they submit.  Seniors are ranked from best to worst based on their cumulative grade point average.  Careful analysis is given to graduation, dropout and absentee rates. Student bodies are described in terms of the percent of their ELL populations, free and reduced lunch recipients and ethnicity.  Schools are measured and ranked based on the number of students who pass or fail standardized tests. 

Ironically, the only part of the system not given a precise score is the work of the teaching staff.  To the contrary, the vast majority of teacher evaluations are neither quantitative nor descriptive.  For the most part they are a “pass/fail” exercise where teachers are deemed either adequate or unsatisfactory.  The best teachers in a district deserve better than a grade of satisfactory.  What is needed is a more detailed, precise evaluation that clearly delineates the performance level of every teacher both individually and in comparison to their colleagues.

One of the key components of the evaluation plan proposed in that earlier post was the use of full-time district evaluators who are responsible for 80% of the process.   Their presence would give these assessments consistency throughout the system rather than within an individual school.  While the original proposal established five basic groupings for performance it could be reconfigured to make it far more quantitative.  A numerical rubric, much like those used to grade essays, could be employed that would assign points in such categories as classroom management, clarity of instruction, standardized tests scores, and any other area that would contribute to the success or failure of an educator. The demographics of the school would be factored into these calculations.  Much like the scoring at an Olympic diving competition the test scores, management skills, etc. would be combined with a “level of difficulty” aspect in terms of the student body involved. 

 The overall evaluation would then be given in the form of a score between 0 and 100.  Such a system would give teachers a clear understanding of their perceived abilities.  A score of 85 in a school where the mean score is 77, the median is 75 and the range of scores is from 99 to 53 will clearly inform the person evaluated of their standing in the school and in the district. The overall competence of the staff could also being easily ascertained. Again, it is critical to emphasize that this would be a program utilizing professional, full-time, district-wide evaluators. 

The potential positive impact of this system on outstanding teachers could be immense.  For our best educators a pat on the back or a kind word cannot match the satisfaction of being ranked in the top 10% of a school or district by other professionals. This is recognition that would truly designate the merit of their work.

Then Reward the Schools           

In a recent post discussing high poverty schools “False Assumptions Lead to Misguided Policy: Part 1” Dr. Riddile wrote:

“We need to begin changing the mindset of educators regarding the need to work in less affluent schools. Talking alone won’t change the culture. Changing the culture means changing our behavior by creating incentives for teacher and principals to work in those schools including up-front financial incentives, a promise of small class sizes, upgraded facilities with the latest technology, and award and recognition programs that recognize teachers in less affluent schools.”

Building on Dr. Riddile’s thoughts, why not blend this idea with the concept of merit pay?  If a school’s faculty is among the top scorers in the district, factoring in all the variables about the various schools in the system, then the school is given a reward.  It could be in the form of extra staffing (lower class sizes), better resources, or improved technology in addition to the implicit recognition.  This system would not be designed to punish affluent schools.  As demonstrated in an earlier piece (Time to Turn Talk into Action) a relatively simple mathematical equation can be constructed that will acknowledge success at all types of schools. 

Recognition of “merit” whether in actual dollars or in the clear and concrete knowledge that their talents are both documented and appreciated is critical to the morale and self-confidence of our best educators.  By incorporating a quantitative, consistent evaluation with financial rewards for outstanding teachers, schools, such an outcome is possible. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:44 AM | Permalink

You’ve heard the old adage, if we keep doing what we’re doing, we’ll keep getting the same results. In the same way, if we keep holding learning time constant, we will continue to have significant numbers of our students, who simply need more time to master some subjects, fail. It is time to rethink our views on summer school and maybe to rethink our approaches to summer learning as well. “In many ways, the summer months are the last frontier of school reform.”

A recent Education Week commentary may help school leaders change their opinion on summer school and summer learning. The authors point out that “the literature is clear and compelling on the fact that summer is a season of huge risks and setback for low-income youths.”

The Facts

• Two-thirds of the achievement gap in reading is directly related to unequal summer learning opportunities.
• Secretary Duncan views summer learning loss as “devastating.”
• In one study, low-income students lost ground in reading each summer compared with their higher-income peers, who actually made progress.
• The accumulated summer learning loss over eleven successive summers played a big part in determining whether a student graduated and whether the student attended post-secondary education and training.

The Bottom Line

• We don’t have an achievement gap. We have a learning time gap.
• The research is clear, given time, students can learn. The question then is, who will give students the time they need?

Next: Summer School – Part 2

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:53 AM | Permalink

Some high ranking officials and several big foundations believe that merit pay for teachers will raise student achievement. I worked in a merit pay system that we were all happy to see end. Merit pay never improved student achievement but was extremely divisive. Instead of encouraging teachers to work collaboratively, merit pay placed them in competition with each other. In addition, the absence of a growth model or any valid way of measuring student progress, the system degenerated into a “dog and pony show.” Those who could put on the best show were awarded merit pay. Merit pay also put a lot of pressure on principals and assistant principals to overrate teachers. Merit pay became an expectation not an exception. Some schools in our district had 90% of their teachers receiving merit pay.

I am currently in New Orleans speaking at the Plain Talk About Reading Conference sponsored by The Center for Development and Learning. Long time school reformer, Michael Fullan, was speaking about his new book, All Systems Go. Fullan directly and pointedly addressed the whole idea of merit pay saying, “Merit pay pleases a few and angers the rest.” He went on to talk at length about what research shows actually motivates teachers and merit pay is not on the list. By the way, neither are punishment, threats, or coercion.

Here is Fullan’s list of “Incentives That Work for Teachers:

• Good salaries
• Decent Surroundings
• Positive Climate
• Strong Induction
• Extensive Professional Learning
• Opportunity to work with and learn from others
• Supportive, and even assertive, leadership
• Helpful Feedback
• Reasonable Class Size
• Long-term Collective Agreements
• Realizable Moral Purpose (Fullan cites this a most important)

Research on motivation does not support the use of financial incentives for long-term professional growth. At best, merit pay is a temporary “satisfier.” Teachers deserve to be well compensated, but merit pay is not the answer. When asked about merit pay, I say that we should reward the behaviors that we really want. We want schools and teams of teachers to succeed, not individuals. Therefore, if we provide incentives, we should reward schools.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:11 PM | Permalink

In “No Place for the Hatfields and McCoys” the Teacher Leader opens up a Pandora’s box of critical issues that go to the heart of school improvement.

Culture or Structure – The Teacher Leader astutely points out the importance “creating a positive, productive and trusting relationship between the administrative team and the teaching staff.” When all is said and done, any school improvement effort that focuses on changes in structure is doomed to failure unless the culture of the school changes. When school change is mentioned, many think immediately of reconfiguring bricks and mortar, changing the physical configuration of a school building, altering schedules, acquiring new technology, or purchasing equipment. But schools are not about bricks and mortar. Schools are about people and what they believe and expect, how they think, and how they interact and work together. Structural changes like small learning communities, career academies, professional learning communities, and ninth grade centers all work if the values, beliefs, expectations, and attitudes of the staff support a commitment to raising student achievement—culture. Culture is not for sale. Money cannot purchase a supportive environment or respect and trust. A school can have all the right programs in place but not be a high-performing school if the culture isn’t about continuous, incremental improvement.

Cooperation or Control – The essential question that every school leader and classroom leader must ask is “Do I want control or cooperation?” The answer to that question creates an intention that drives all future behavior. A school leader or classroom leader who seeks cooperation will think and behave much differently than one who seeks control. I contend that, if one has cooperation, control is unnecessary. However, it is the illusion of control or the fear of losing control that drives many leaders to engage in the kind of close-minded, top-down styles of interacting that erode relationships, stifle dialogue, and connote a lack of respect. Are you willing to give up a little control in order to get more cooperation? Are you willing to spend more time making decisions in order to make better decisions? Are you okay with not knowing all the answers? Are you willing to ask more questions?

Mutual Respect and Trust – Ask anyone about the key to successful working relationships in schools and they will say, “I want respect and trust.” The bottom line is that without mutual respect and trust, there is no relationship. Behavior doesn’t lie. It is our actions that speak for us. Leaders who respect and trust their staff will tap into their collective intelligence by taking the time to consult, collaborate, and share decision-making. They will spend more time deciding and less time cleaning up messes from hasty decisions. Shared decision-making leads to shared responsibility and shared ownership. Everyone involved must feel that they are not only being heard, but that their opinion counts. In that kind of school culture, staff members want to attend meetings because they know they have a say-so in the decisions being made.

Role Confusion – High-performing schools make the most use of the resources available to help each and every student succeed. The greatest resource is the expertise and emotional commitment of the staff focused intently on meeting the needs of the students. A staff pulling together for the students is virtually unstoppable. The school succeeds or fails to the extent that the adults work together. When visiting high-performing schools one never hears “That’s not my job.” Everything that supports student success is everyone’s job. Our roles change constantly. Early on in the change process, the school leaders, teachers and administrators, concentrate on the need to develop a clear vision and a focus. As the effort progresses, school leaders may spend more time removing barriers and acquiring resources. Our role is to work together to do whatever it takes to raise the achievement of each and every student.

Our job is inherently difficult – Change is the only certainty in our schools. I don’t see a day in the future in which we will be asked to do less. Even though we may be given fewer resources, expectations will never fall. That is our reality. If we work on the right things, the right way, for the right reasons, and if we appreciate, trust, and respect each other, and if we don’t care who is right or who gets the credit, we cannot fail.

Silos of Expertise – In stark contrast to “sorting students for success,” raising the achievement of each and every student requires an entirely different skill set and a level of expertise that only specialists can provide. Trained professionals spend their entire careers developing the necessary knowledge and expertise in areas such as special education, English-language learners, technology, and literacy, as well as in specific content areas. For example, the Teacher Leader developed his expertise in mathematics instruction over the span of four decades. Raising school-wide student math achievement without that level of expertise would have been impossible. With the complexity of our task—raising the achievement of every student—no one can be expected to know all the answers. Success in today’s schools is about asking the right questions, not in any one person knowing all the answers. In the past, school leaders could simply hire the experts and get out of the way to let them do their job.

Partnerships Not Silos – Today’s schools contain a tremendous amount of professional skill and knowledge that, if allowed to function independently, form semi-autonomous silos of expertise. If allowed to work independently, those silos become small kingdoms that could be working in conflict with the outcomes of the school. For example, a technology expert could be so concerned about security and network integrity that students and staff are prevented from engaging in meaningful and relevant learning experiences. School and classroom leaders must work in partnership to harness the collective intelligence and expertise of the entire staff to focus on student success.

No failure, only feedback – Working together to a common focus is our job. We must stop blaming and making excuses. If we truly trust and respect each other, we will not immediately jump to conclusions. Success is all about finding problems and solving them, not blaming, explaining, and excusing. We cannot be concerned about failing. We can only fail if we stop trying. There is no failure, only feedback toward our goal of continuous improvement.

Top-down or bottom up? – The Teacher Leader correctly points out that schools must be flat. High-performing schools are not about top-down or bottom-up decision-making. They are flat, less hierarchical, student-focused, and collaborative. In high-performing schools everyone shares in the decision-making process and in taking personal responsibility for student success.

Teams not individuals – High-performing schools are team oriented. Gone are the days of the individual, all-star teacher or charismatic school leaders. Today, it is about collaboration and working together toward a common outcome.

Accountability Demands Involvement – There can be no winners and losers in our schools. We either win together or we all lose together. If we believe that everyone must contribute to student success, then we must involve everyone in a meaningful way.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

by Mel Riddile

On November 23 President Obama helped launch a new campaign, “Educate to Innovate,” designed to energize and excite America’s students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).  According to the White House report, the program “builds on the President’s pledge that he would use his position to help encourage students to study and consider careers in science, engineering, technology, and innovation—fields upon which America’s future depends—and elevate those students from the middle to the top of the pack worldwide.”
Educate to Innovate is designed to reach millions of students over the next four years and inspire them to “become the next generation of engineers and scientists, inventors and innovators.”
In his Inaugural Address, the President vowed to put science “in its rightful place.” According to the report, one of those rightful places is the classroom. The report goes on to point out that “our schools lack support for teachers or the other resources needed to convey the practical utility and remarkable beauty of science and engineering. As a result, students become overwhelmed in their classes and ultimately disengaged. They lose, and our nation loses too.”

by Mel Riddile

As a high school principal, I always felt as though I was drinking out of a fire hose instead of a straw. It was always difficult to find the time to keep abreast of current issues that were important to me as a principal. I had the best of intentions, but I often found myself not reading that article or that book that a friend recommended. I needed someone to synthesize what was happening and translate it for me so that I could put the information into practice. I needed short bursts of information that I could absorb in a few minutes. If I wanted more information, I could take the next step. Blogs are a great way to stay on top of school issues, but I couldn’t find one that applied directly to me as a principal. I needed a bridge between research, current events, and my school. That’s what this blog is all about—taking what is out there and translating it for principals so that they can use it right away.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Mel Riddile

I had just finished my keynote address before hundreds. The topic was literacy. One of the country’s most respected researchers on adolescent literacy walked up to me and said, “Mel, everything you said was correct, but I can’t tell you which point was the most important.” I breathed a big sigh of relief. He is extremely knowledgeable and a renowned “debugger.” He can find what is wrong with anything in an instant. So, I took his comment as a great compliment. However, I had a feeling that the other shoe was about to drop, and it did.

He went on to say, “You miss the point. The key to school success is not leadership. All we have to do is hire the best teachers.” I paused a moment before I responded, “I agree, great teachers are the answer, but who is going to recruit and hire the teachers? Who is going to help the teachers grow professionally? No one goes into any true profession--medicine, law, accounting, and education— knowing all that they need to know. Who is going to set the tone for student behavior by creating a safe and orderly school environment so that learning can take place? Who is going to acquire the resources for those great teachers? Who is going to point them in the right direction? You can’t have a great school without a great leader and, in today’s schools, we need great leaders.”

I went on to say, “The biggest complaint I hear from teachers is that nothing gets done in their school unless the principal is behind it.” If I had to invest in one and only one person in a school, I would invest in the school leader. While teachers are what our work is about, nothing gets done unless the leader is behind it--not technology, certainly not literacy, not high expectations for all students.

Of course, leaders can’t do it alone. They need the skills to provide a vision and direction and they need to gain the voluntary cooperation of every staff member. In order to help every student succeed, we need schools that are flatter and more collaborative, warmer and more inviting, and more rigorous, and we need visionary leaders who can nourish and grow those schools cultures.

For the first time in my four decades as a school leader there seems to be a general recognition that secondary schools are just as important as elementary schools. Policy makers are beginning to indicate that funding may indeed reflect that idea. As secondary leaders, we have a window of opportunity that may never occur again. Funds may be coming our way that will enable us to finally do for our students what is and has always been needed. With the opportunity comes accountability and tremendous responsibility to prove that we are capable of educating each and every student to high levels.

I want to make a difference and be a part of the solution not whine about the problems. This blog is about school leaders. This blog is about reflecting and it is about taking massive action to continuously improve our schools. Because school leaders like teachers have to hit the road running, this blog is about shortening the learning curve and accelerating the performance curve. I am convinced that you don’t have to do what I had to do—learn by trial and error. We can learn from those who know what it takes to take diverse, high-poverty schools, turn them around, and set students and teachers up for success.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:59 PM | Permalink