"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

"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

Background: Back in 1995, I was teaching an Internet course for our teachers. When I look at the syllabus for that course, I have a good laugh. Sad to say, we could do things in 1995 that would be difficult to pull off today. Yes, we were using ftp and a beta version of Netscape, but we were regularly videoconferencing with people around the world. Today, I would have to get special permission from our district to conduct those same video-conferences. The reality is that "brute force" filtering of Internet content has resulted in us regressing rather than progressing.

School leaders are unintentionally killing the motivation of our teachers and students to make the most use of technology in our schools, not by our actions, but by our inaction on the issue of web filtering.

Teachers repeatedly complain to me that their students cannot do research at school because so many web sites are blocked. Students are resigned to the fact that doing research on a school computer is next to impossible. So, they just wait until they go home.

Scotomas

To put it bluntly, many of our colleagues have developed scotomas or blind spots in relation to certain practices in their schools, and content filtering is one of the most prevalent examples. Instead of asking why, they simply shrug their shoulders respond with a deer-in-the-headlights look. I have asked a number of my fellow school leaders about policies and practices in their school and school system relating to content filtering. Most have no idea what is going on in their school regarding filtering or the frustration experienced by their teachers and students.

Flat World

No, the world isn't flat, but when it comes to content filtering in schools it might as well be. Most school leaders react to my questions relating to filtering in much the same way that Europeans must have reacted when Christopher Columbus challenged the prevailing wisdom of the day by proposing that the world was not flat but was round. School leaders generally accept the status quo related to content filtering with a 'that's the way it is' response.

A Good Day In IT Land

In fact, many school leaders are allowing IT folks to do what we used to allow some librarians to do--keep the kids out and the books in. Keep in mind that, for some, a good day in IT Land is when no one is on the network, and, thus, there are no problems. From my experience, IT folk are among the usual suspects who are practitioners of ABC management practices--Administration By Convenience.

Over-Compliance

In an April interview, which is a must-read for all school staff and parents, Karen Cator of the U.S. Department of Education takes on what she calls "brute force technologies." According to Cator, many schools are simply over-complying with federal guidelines.

What you must know about content filtering

In the interview, "Cator parsed the rules of the Childrens Internet Protection Act, and provided guidance for teachers on how to proceed when it comes to interpreting the rules. To that end, here are six surprising rules that educators, administrators, parents and students might not know about website filtering in schools."

1. Accessing YouTube is not violating CIPA rules.
2. Websites don’t have to be blocked for teachers.
3. Broad filters are not helpful.
4. Schools will not lose E-rate funding by unblocking appropriate sites.
5. Kids need to be taught how to be responsible digital citizens.
6. Teachers should be trusted.

The Solution

If you, as a school leader, don't advocate for your teachers and students, who will? Content filtering is an important part of any school-wide technology effort. I should know. In my former high school, every one of our 3,200 students had a laptop.

Yes, we blocked inappropriate sites. On occasion, our IT staff blocked appropriate sites, but we had a simple remedy. If a teacher came across a site that she wanted unblocked, she simply emailed me the name of the site and the URL. I forwarded a request to our IT people and, within minutes the problem was solved.

The key here is that, as the principal, I got involved and assumed responsibility.  IT people are simply doing what they think is best. If they never hear from us, they have no idea that a problem exists. It is true that some IT people practice the ABCs (Administration-By-Convenience). However, I have found most IT people to be particularly helpful, especially when the school leader is willing to take the time to show interest and to get directly involved.

Don't wait another day! Meet with your IT staff and discuss content filtering. Work out a plan to address teacher issues and advocate for improved student achievement through the effective use of technology.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:44 AM | Permalink

A small miracle occurred in Rivercrest High School, which is located in Wilson, Arkansas near the banks of the Mississippi River. Due to an apparent lack of experience and a degree of naïveté, a second-year English teacher, Lindsey Kelley, decided that it was time to "give students a say in their own education" (student voice) and ask the students why "only 31 percent of the school’s African-American juniors scored at least proficient in English on the state’s 2010 benchmark exams, compared to 65 percent of white kids."

Instead of upsetting the students, the question motivated them to take action and they "took responsibility for their own test scores." The result was that the school made significant strides toward closing the achievement gap and a remarkable 17-point rise in proficiency and a promise of better to come.

You can read the full story here.

Takeaways for School Leaders

Ask and Learn: The role of the school leader today is to ask and learn, not to know and tell. When in doubt ask, ask, ask. We either assume too much or we are in such a hurry to get things done that we end up spending most of our time cleaning up messes that could have been avoided if we had taken the time to ask in the first place.

Go slow to go fast! Take the time to talk through problems and to process both successes and failures. The key is that we learn and grow not that we know and show.

Start small to go big! Rivercrest had a major challenge. Instead of devising a master plan, they started small and grew. Every successful improvement effort starts small. Want to ensure failure? Make a general announcement and tell others about your plan, and demand that everyone get on board right away.

Students have insight into how they learn best. Ask them! When asked what teachers could do students suggested that "waiting until everyone understands a concept rather than racing ahead in order to stay on schedule." (Check for Understanding)

Don't Major in the Minors! Pay attention to what you believe is important.

At Rivercrest, "achieving in school became more important than competing in sports." Set a goal to have your students say, "our athletics need to catch up to our academics."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:08 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) exams, which are representative of many of the end-of-course assessments utilized as barriers to graduation throughout the country, have plenty of room for improvement.  In previous posts I have made a number of specific suggestions for upgrading the SOLs.  That said,  I must admit that a new “improvement” advanced recently  in the “Washington Post” by some of Virginia’s educational leaders rendered me virtually speechless.

“Several prominent Virginia superintendents are pushing the state to give (SOL) standardized tests months earlier in the school year, a shift they say would reduce the impact of testing on classes and free teachers to offer more meaningful lessons.

“A change in the testing calendar would allow more time to teach ‘key 21st century skills that are linked to college and career readiness,’ the superintendents wrote to state Superintendent of Public Instruction, Patricia I. Wright, in April.”

The new plan would allow those students who fail the exams in the first semester to retest one or two times later in the year.

Not nearly as simple as it looks

There is no question that for many students end-of-course exams are outrageously easy.  Over an eight year period in the honors Algebra 2 classes at my former school, no student ever failed the corresponding SOL.  And certainly a portion of our students, based on our internal assessments, could indeed pass the exams by the end of the first semester.  However, at least in terms of the math curriculum, the people making these proposals are not accepting certain realities.

A close inspection of the May, 2011 test scores for my former school is enlightening.  During that session 28% of the Geometry students in the building did not pass the SOL.  One fifth of the Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 also failed.  What would those numbers have been if the test had been given four months earlier? 

An episode that occurred several years ago may help answer that question.  The district leadership was in turmoil because the scores on the Algebra 1 SOL the previous year had dropped dramatically at nearly every school.  At a department chair meeting the concern of the math coordinator was palpable. We were tasked with going back to our schools and trying to find the root cause of the across the board decline.  I asked my lead Algebra 1 teacher why it had happened and she instantly replied with a single word—“snow”.  We had lost two weeks to inclement weather that year and that translated into two fewer weeks of review.  Those ten school days were sufficient to have a negative impact on the students' performance.  This new plan would be the equivalent of three months of snow.

Another factor that cannot be measured precisely by statistics is the damage done to the fragile confidence of the most at-risk students when they fail a test that they are woefully under-prepared to take.   How many students who fail the exam in January, but could have passed in May, will be too discouraged to continue? Conversely, what is the motivation for students who have passed the exam in January, to continue the course with the same intensity as they exhibited prior to the exam?

Pros, cons, and something in-between

The Virginia superintendents are very clear about why this change would help successful students.  One of them explained, “Our students are bored because they’re not doing the hands-on kind of learning that they’re great at.”  Unfortunately, they are a bit vague when it comes to their plans for the students who do not pass the test.  According to the “Post”:

“Testing Virginia students in the first half of the school year would also allow time for teachers to tailor remediation efforts to those who do not pass the exams the first time.”

No details were forthcoming about what this “remediation” effort would look like.  It was not designated as after school, during school, a weekend activity or within the daily class schedule.  What was clear was that regardless of the format, the teachers will be responsible for the implementation.  If the ultimate goal is to create a better academic environment for students, placing ambiguous and unfunded responsibilities on teachers is misguided.  Any remediation plan that puts all of the pressure on teachers without providing any clear program for the additional time necessary for execution is destined to fail. 

Making this into a good idea

The apparent goal of this proposal is to diminish the importance of the end-of-course exams by administering them in January.   While this may indeed have validity for many, if not most students, there are other students who, given less time to prepare for the exams, will become unacceptable collateral damage.   

Ironically early testing could be an excellent approach if it were properly utilized.  One possibility is to test the students in January and establish who has passed the tests and who has not.  Then move those students into two different groups.  Those who have succeeded can move forward and enjoy the “21st Century Education” so desired by the various school leaders.  The ones who do not pass would be placed into special courses that would focus on the subject matter needed for success.  While some may negatively categorize this idea as tracking and draconian, the truth is that these tests are barrier exams for graduation.  It is not hyperbole to state that failing these exams could possibly have negative life-long consequences for some students.   Developing classes specifically to ensure that students pass exams that are required for graduation is the best course of action for all involved.  Clearly, moving all tests to the first semester without adequate planning for all students is not.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:09 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Evaluations that have value

Academic success has been directly linked to the quality of a school’s teaching and administrative staffs.  Ideas are constantly being presented for improving educational personnel.  But singular approaches such as merit pay, improved evaluations, and easier termination policies will not individually accomplish that goal.  What is needed is a multi-faceted program that will address all of the shortcomings in the current system. Previously, eight fundamental areas were presented that need to be addressed in order for districts to be able to hire, improve and retain the most talented educators.    

This is the fourth in a series of articles that will detail the steps needed to implement those improvements.  In earlier posts hiring practices and effective interviewing techniques have been discussed. Part 4 will focus on the evaluation process.

Changing more than the format

Nearly every proposal for improving teacher evaluation revolves around the use of data particularly standardized tests.  While that is an important item for consideration, the most pressing reform may well involve redefining who is best qualified to actually perform those evaluations.  The first step in true evaluation reform should be to create a new set of individuals who are responsible for this portion of the process. 

Not the best choice for the job

In most school districts the primary responsibility for this process falls to the local administrative team and there are many assistant principals who are well equipped to review the work of a staff member.  But even though the vast majority undertake this time-consuming task with a high level of commitment, they have an overwhelming array of day-to-day responsibilities. For example, the AP who evaluated the math teachers at my former school was tasked with the discipline of more than three hundred freshmen, administering (and evaluating) three different departments, implementing the testing plan for state barrier exams, hall duty between change of classes, supervising several extra-curricular and athletic events and interviewing candidates for vacancies.  In addition there were the almost daily emergencies that always arise in a high school.  A majority of administrators have similar job descriptions.  It is not surprising to find the time to evaluate teachers falling toward the bottom of this lengthy “to-do” list. 

Creating professional evaluators

A better option for school districts is to train a group of master teachers to become full-time, system-wide professional evaluators.  Such individuals would be significantly better equipped to accurately assess the skill of an instructor than administrators who in all likelihood were not hired primarily for their evaluation skills.  The money required for forming such a cadre could be offset by a reduction in administrative staff and an improved evaluation process.

An even more important argument for this innovation revolves around fairness and consistency.  School-based evaluators cannot help but be somewhat biased by their daily interaction with the staff.  Within a building there is an intuitive sense of which individuals perform well and which perform poorly in the classroom.  These reputations are rarely based on quantitative data; they are the result of comments by students, parents, faculty and other subjective experiences.  Minimally these unsubstantiated ideas can influence the amount of effort spent on an evaluation.  If pressed for time, an argument could be made to shorten the observation of a teacher who is widely “recognized” as being outstanding.  Conversely, negative sentiments from the school community can result in closer scrutiny of less well respected educators.  In either case a measure of fairness is compromised. 

A team of district-based evaluators would eliminate this problem and would also create consistency throughout the system.  The evaluations at school A could be compared with confidence to those at school B.  A number of issues ranging from merit pay, transfers and the termination of contracts could be resolved more reliably.      

What would the process contain?

Here is one hypothetical fix for the ineffective and unproductive teacher evaluations that are sadly typical.  Three professionals would form a teacher’s evaluation team.  One (generalist) would be a highly trained observer who is thoroughly versed in the fundamentals of good teaching.  Another (curriculum specialist) would have similar training but would have taught in the subject field being observed.  The third would be an assistant principal at the school. The generalists and curriculum specialists would be required to have at least ten years of successful teaching experience in addition to extensive training in observing and interpreting classroom activities.  Successful retired teachers could be an outstanding and economical talent pool for these positions. 

The actual evaluation process would be intense.  At least five formal observations would be required.  The generalist and specialist would have two announced and two unannounced.  Additional observations can be done when necessary or desired.  A local assistant principal would perform one unannounced visit.  This experience would familiarize the AP with the teacher being evaluated.  The results of this observation would not be included in the final document but should allow the administrator to better understand and interpret the input from the other team members.  All observations would encompass an entire class period.  The two announced would be videotaped which would become a central component in post-observation conferences.  The videos would also be available to the other members of the team.  When appropriate, standardized test scores and other pertinent data would be included in the overall assessment.  Evaluators will, of course, be carefully trained in analyzing such data and how to utilize it in a fair, accurate manner.  At the end of the process, the three observers would meet and create the overall rating that would then be shared with the teacher.   The primary source of the final conclusions would be the two observers; the role of the AP would be to coordinate the process and provide further input if needed.

The next steps

The purpose of an evaluation should be to both determine the quality of one’s performance and to construct approaches to improve and enhance skills.  Ultimately it should also be a tool in determining pay, advancement and termination.  Those will be the focus of the next part of this series.  

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:09 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Developing an Effective Interview Process

Academic success has been directly linked to the quality of a school’s teaching and administrative staffs.  Prescriptions are continually being proposed to improve educational personnel.  These plans have included merit pay, improved evaluations, and easier termination policies among others.  But this goal is too complex to be accomplished with singular solutions.  What is required is a multi-faceted program that will address a variety of shortcomings in the current hiring system.  Previously, I have compiled eight fundamental areas that need to be reassessed in order for districts to be able to hire, improve and retain the most talented educators. 

This is the third in a series of articles that will detail the steps needed to implement those improvements.  This post will focus on the interviewing process.

Rule 1:  The interview begins with the resume

One of the most important components to the interview process begins before any face-to-face meetings occur.  Choosing the best interview candidates from among dozens of resumes can be difficult.  No single piece of paper can tell the complete story of an applicant’s strengths or weaknesses.  But there are some items that deserve extra attention. 

What is the candidate’s academic background and teaching experience?

Only applicants with a strong academic background in the subject area should be given serious consideration.  While a major in the field would be preferable, the minimum requirement would be a significant number of successfully completed courses in the curriculum.  In many states the requirements for certification are unrealistically low.  For that reason there should be a thorough examination of the candidate’s GPA particularly in the subject area.  If this information is not contained on the resume, a transcript should be requested.   This extra step can reveal a great deal about a prospective teacher.  For example, one individual who applied for a Chemistry position at my former school had a reasonably good overall GPA.  However, a detailed look at the candidate’s transcript revealed that every course in Chemistry was “C” or lower including a few that had to be repeated.   This information is not trivial.

Previous employment, summer jobs, and areas of interest should also be carefully examined.  Matching an educator to a school is a subtle process.  Different student bodies require different strengths.  Evaluate prior experiences in terms of preparing the candidate for the school’s particular needs.  After determining the top choices the interviewing process should begin.

Rule 2:  Have the right people doing the interview

Teacher interviews should be conducted by the two individuals most directly involved in the development of new staff—the department chair and the supervising assistant principal.  If one of the two does not attend an interview no hiring should take place until both have had an opportunity to talk with the candidate.  Offering a position should require a 2-0 “vote”.  

The inclusion of the chair is particularly important.  No one understands the exact needs of a department as well as a person who works with this group every day.  In addition having a teacher in the process gives the applicant an opportunity to ask specific questions concerning working at that particular school.  While an AP has first-hand knowledge of the learning environment, it is not the equivalent to that of a full-time teacher.  Moreover, if the department chairs have a voice in the hiring, they will also have ownership and accountability.  It is now incumbent on them to make this hire work.  And finally having both the AP and department chair conducting the interviews makes the process more consistent, allows them to develop a coordinated working relationship and gives this somewhat subjective decision making process more objectivity.   

Rule 3:  Everyone should be asking questions

An effective interview is one that allows information to flow in two directions.  As the interviewers assess the qualifications of a candidate through a series of questions, the applicant should be seeking information about the makeup of the student body, an overview of the department personnel and educational philosophy and administrative support and expectations.  This understanding of the educational environment within the building is critical.  Hiring the right teacher is not always about hiring the most talented one.  Good teachers and successful schools are not automatically a perfect fit.  I have known many underperforming teachers who have found great success after transferring to a new location.  People often underestimate the importance of personal chemistry in teaching success. 

Rule 4:  Ask questions that result in meaningful answers

The inquiries posed during an interview should elicit introspection of one’s beliefs about education.  The goal should be to determine the applicant’s beliefs regarding why some students fail to achieve, how to reach different learning styles within a classroom, the most productive student/teacher relationship, and classroom management approaches.  Some of my personal favorites include:

• Within your curriculum what is your favorite topic?  How would you share that enthusiasm with your students?
• Next October when I visit your class, what facet of the lesson I observe will be the most impressive?
• During that visit what will be the most notable aspect of the classroom environment?
• What teaching issues would most likely require you to ask for advice from your colleagues?

A series of such questions should be created that will give true insights into the philosophies and beliefs of the candidate and also express the academic direction of the school.

Rule 5:  The questions are only the beginning

The give and take of the interview should be only a portion of the process in determining who is offered a position.  A comprehensive interview would include the following:

• Writing sample.  The most basic skill required of a successful educator is the ability to communicate.  This talent must exist both verbally and in writing.  Having applicants express their views in words can reveal additional information not necessarily apparent in a question and answer setting.  Sample questions could include “What motivates you to be an educator?”, “What was the primary reason you applied to this particular school?” “Think of your favorite teacher.  What made this person so special to you?”  A written answer to any of these inquiries could give some extremely important insights.
• Teach a lesson.  Tell the applicant in advance that they will be asked to teach a fifteen minute portion of a lesson they have done in the past.  They should be prepared with handouts, power points, board work, etc.  If they are uncomfortable with this request, what does that say about their future in front of a classroom of students?
• Tour the school and visit classrooms.  Remember this is a two-way interview.  Give them a genuine feel for the educational environment.  An interviewer can gather insights about a candidate by observing their reaction to a classroom visit. After one of my interviews a teacher asked me when the students would be dismissed.  She then situated herself in the main office and watched the students as they left the building.  She later told me that the manner in which they conducted themselves and their interaction with adults convinced her that she wanted to be at this school. 
• Make a lunch date.  Prior to offering a position, a highly-rated candidate should be invited to have lunch with the department during a school day.  This setting provides a wonderful opportunity for interaction with potential future colleagues and often served as the final stage in the entire process. 

Rule 6:  Aggressively contact references and previous employers

Some of the worst information acquired during the interviewing process is obtained from references.  Too many people are loath to give honest appraisals or worse they want to get rid of a problem teacher.  Consequently interviewers need to ask pointed questions when contacting these individuals.  The importance of their input needs to be clearly stated and emphasis be given to the need for candor.  Books could be written about the harm caused by misleading references.   Consequently, it is a process that must be undertaken carefully and with caution.

Rule 7:  Use your new hires as a resource

Your new hires can help in improving the interviewing process.  I always asked them why they chose to accept our offer and how our process compared to others.  These conversations revealed some important insights that were used to strengthen our work in the future.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:17 PM | 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

If you have been reading my latest posts, you might jump to the conclusion that I am against accountability, including merit pay for teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I embraced accountability because it forced us to do what we should have been doing all along--hold all students to higher standards. As a principal, I worked in a high-stakes accountability state (Virginia), and that accountability system gave our school the leverage it needed to promote increased rigor and high expectations for all students.

What does a high-stakes accountability environment look like? In a high stakes accountability environment, everyone including students and schools are held accountable.

In too many states, there is accountability for teachers and schools, but no accountability for students. In those states, the destiny of the school and fate of the teachers rests on the good will of the students. If the students feel like taking the state test, they do. If they don't feel like it, they "flag the test." How can so many states hold everyone but the students, who actually take the tests, accountable? It makes absolutely no sense.

I worked in Virginia throughout the first decade of the SOL, Standards of Learning, assessments. Initially, the tests were set up to discredit and embarrass public schools. However, when just about every school failed the tests, the parents revolted and the state threw out the old guard and worked with schools to develop a fair system, which included the following for high school:

Schools were held accountability.

• Eleven end-of-course exams
• Schools had to achieve a 70% proficiency rate or lose state accreditation.
• Schools were held to graduation targets.
• Schools who failed to achieve prescribed targets were required to go through a school improvement process.

Students were held accountable.

• The end-of-course exams acted as barriers to graduation.
• Students were required to pass the courses and six of the eleven end-of-course exams in order to earn a diploma.
• At the urging of the Virginia Association of Secondary Principals, the State strengthened existing attendance laws and stepped up enforcement.
• No students were "Christmas-treeing" tests in Virginia. Students took the test seriously because they counted for them and, even if they had the six required verified credits, they cared because their teachers cared so much.

Note: There was no statistically significant change in graduation rates in the barrier year, 2004, because the State initiated a "Project Graduation" initiative that began in 2000.

Teachers were not held individually accountable.

There was no need to hold teachers personally accountable, because they held themselves to such high standards. Our teachers expected more of themselves than anyone else would ever expect of them. They felt a sense of shared responsibility and a commitment to their students, their colleagues, and to the school as a whole. They understood that test scores reflected on "our school" and on "our students." In fact, teachers were so committed to student success that we had to be very careful how we reported test results, lest we single out or inadvertently identify any one individual teacher. Our teachers took each test score personally. Instead of having to light a fire under our teachers, we had to hold hands and sooth hurt feelings, because they cared so much.

That is the kind of accountability environment we want. We want students to take the tests seriously. We want the teachers to care about the success of their students. We want a collegial environment that encourages collective effort and cooperation. We want the students to say that the "teachers would never give up on us."

Why Do We Need Merit Pay?

Coming from that experience explains why I don't understand the merit pay argument. Anyone who knows teachers knows that money is not a motivator. They don't need to be cajoled with promises of bonuses to dedicate themselves. In fact, like most achievement-motivated professionals, teachers are insulted and demotivated by the use of tangible rewards. Teachers want what Frederick Herzberg called "motivators"--recognition, challenging work, responsibility.

Pay teachers as professionals! Pay them in proportion to their contribution to society. Stop nickel-and-diming them with promises of meager bonuses!

What Teachers Really Want

Supportive Leadership - More than anything else, including higher pay (45%), 40,000 teachers surveyed reported that they want supportive leadership (68%). Supportive leadership ensures that all of the following are available to teachers in the school.

Sense of Purpose - In the long run, what most motivates teachers is a sense of purpose--the desire to make a difference in the lives of their students. After all, that is why we became educators. However, when teachers drive old beaten up cars and they can't even afford to live in the communities in which they teach, it is hard to talk to them about a higher purpose.

Mastery - Teachers want to feel that they are skilled professionals. They want to feel that they are continually growing and improving. They want quality professional development that actually helps them improve their practice.

Self-Direction - Teachers want input into the key decisions that impact their profession on a daily basis. They want opportunities to collaborate with their colleagues.

Team - Teachers want to feel that they are a part of a collective effort. Teaching does not have to be lonely endeavor. Schools work best when teachers are committed to each other and the success of their students.

Professionals - Teachers want to be treated as professionals. They want to be treated like people not workers.

The Bottom Line

Professionals keep score, but their score is actually a true reflection of actual performance. Some of the current practices, such as not holding students accountable for test scores, and some of the proposals like merit pay and value-added teacher evaluations fail to pass the reality test and set up schools to fail. For example, our school wide literacy effort made a big difference in student performance on State assessments. However, since literacy strategies were practiced in every classroom every day, it was impossible to single out an individual teacher to receive a merit pay bonus.

Team efforts should garner collective rewards. Merit systems pit one teacher against another competing for scarce resources--the merit bonus. We need to reward and encourage collective effort not the individual all-stars teachers, who exemplified 20th century assembly line schools.

School leaders want and welcome accountability, but lets make it a meaningful and fair system, not one that singles out individuals for rewards or punishments. School leaders rely on the voluntary cooperation of teachers, students, and parents if the school is to succeed. Set us up to succeed!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:08 AM | Permalink

Background: Nationally, two-thirds of students are not reading on grade level by the fourth grade, the earliest year of testing in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). That proportion rises to four-fifths for low-income children, according to NAEP results released last year.

A recently released national study indicates that students who are not proficient readers in third grade are significantly more likely to drop out. "Students who don’t read proficiently by third grade are four times more likely to leave high school without a diploma than proficient readers."

It's Poverty Not Stupid (3-6-8) "Poverty compounds the problem."

Students who have lived in poverty are three times more likely to drop out or fail to graduate on time than their more affluent peers;

• If they read poorly, too, the rate is six times greater than that for all proficient readers.
• For black and Latino students, the combined effect of poverty and poor third grade reading skills makes the rate eight times greater.
• Poverty troubles even the best readers: Proficient third graders who have lived in poverty graduate at about the same rate as subpar readers who have never been poor.

“We will never close the achievement gap, we will never solve our dropout crisis, we will never break the cycle of poverty that afflicts so many children if we don’t make sure that all our students learn to read,” said Ralph Smith, executive vice president of the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Specifically, the study found:

• One in six children who are not reading proficiently in third grade do not graduate from high school on time, a rate four times greater than that for proficient readers.
• The rates are highest for the low, below-basic readers: 23 percent of these children drop out or fail to finish high school on time, compared to 9 percent of children with basic reading skills and 4 percent of proficient readers.
• The below-basic readers account for a third of the sample but three-fifths of the students who do not graduate.
• Overall, 22 percent of children who have lived in poverty do not graduate from high school, compared to 6 percent of those who have never been poor. This rises to 32 percent for students spending more than half of their lives in poverty.
• For children who were poor for at least a year and were not reading proficiently in third grade, the proportion of those who don’t finish school rose to 26 percent.  The rate was highest for poor black and Hispanic students, at 31 and 33 percent respectively. Even so the majority of students who fail to graduate are white.
• Even among poor children who were proficient readers in third grade, 11 percent still didn’t finish high school. That compares to 9 percent of subpar third graders who were never poor.
• Among children who never lived in poverty, all but 2 percent of the best third-grade readers graduated from high school on time.

The study concluded that improvements are needed in the following areas:

1. improving the schools where these children are learning to read
2. helping the families weighed down by poverty
3. better federal, state and local policy to improve the lot of both schools and families
4. aligning quality early education programs with the curriculum and standards in the primary grades
5. paying better attention to health and developmental needs of young children
6. providing work training and other programs that will help lift families out of poverty.

Essential Question

Can high schools or middle schools afford to wait until students arrive at their doors with reading problems?

• The development of math and literacy skills is a PK-12 issue, not an elementary issue, not a middle school issue, and certainly not a high school issue.
• Vertical articulation between all levels is one key to improving literacy skills.
• Curriculum alignment is another key.
• Cross-content literacy instruction (Common Core ELA Standards) and whole-school literacy initiatives are another key.
• Keep in mind that, even if under-resourced students are proficient by third grade, they must have direct, explicit literacy (reading, writing, thinking, discussing) instruction every year thereafter or they will not progress.
• Literacy skills predict future math performance, which, in turn, predicts future college completion.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:11 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

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

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

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Nearly a year ago I wrote about the importance of little things in education.  These adjustments were minor, no-cost changes that could improve the academic environment of a school.  The discussion at that time focused on utilizing classrooms to minimize teacher movement, avoiding surprise disruptions in the daily schedule, balancing the size of the grading periods and limiting the number of teacher preparations. Recently, I have come to realize there may be a need to update the list. 

These colors do run

Throughout a school year, there are days that will be lost to special events.  One such occasion occurred at my former school the year after I retired.  Because Veterans Day was not a district holiday, an event was designed for parents to visit the building and have the opportunity to meet with teachers on a first-come, first served basis.  It was an overwhelming success. For more than three hours the entire staff assembled in the gymnasium and parents had the unique opportunity to have an in-depth discussion of the progress of their children.  The only problem with the program was its negative impact on classes. The school’s normal block schedule had alternating “red” (periods 1-3-5-7) and “blue” (2-4-5-6) days. (Fifth period was a daily, embedded lunch class)  Unfortunately, the regular red-blue-red schedule was kept in place and as a result the blue, parent’s day was an instructional loss.  Now facing what was in essence two consecutive red days the teachers had to make a difficult decision.  They could either do little on the second red day or have their blue day students fall behind. 

The need for such decisions could have been avoided.  The previous year when the November 11 date for this event was already established, a non-color day should have been planned that would include the parental meetings, lunch and a creative use of the remaining two hours.  November 10 would stay red, November 12 goes blue and everything remains orderly.  The fact that this was not the case the first year is understandable.  Adapting to new circumstances takes time.  What is not acceptable is to continue to fail to make the necessary corrections resulting in the same loss of class time year after year.

Someone needs to be paying attention

Every year there are a number of events such as this parent’s day, PSAT testing and special assemblies that severely impact class schedules.  Smaller activities including fire drills, class meetings, pep rallies and honor roll parties need to be considered as well.  The obvious solution is to anticipate and prepare for such educational disruptions. But in the fragmented world of the administrative staff where the job descriptions are multiple, diverse and often unexpected, dealing with these problems can be difficult.  At my school the solution was to have a staff member oversee all such concerns.  For more than a decade, fixing these educational potholes was a part of my workday.   Each spring I would look at the upcoming school calendar and find ways to lessen these conflicts.  During the school year, I would be asked to evaluate the timing of the smaller events.  Being a classroom teacher gave me the perspective to recognize potential trouble spots.  Then working with the administrative team, a viable solution would be created.             

One example of such planning was the “Multi-Cultural Awareness Assembly,” which was designed to celebrate the diversity of our student body.  The problem was that our auditorium could only seat half of the school and the program was lengthy.  Whatever day it was scheduled was going to be devoid of academics.  Consequently, we decided to present it on the last day before winter break.  Coming just before a long vacation, the loss of the teaching day was muted and more parents were able to attend.  Also, the faculty was advised of the plan well in advance and was given both a clear explanation of why these decisions had been made and an opportunity to give their own input. 

Similar cooperation was used to minimize the problems caused by mandatory fire drills.  The principal agreed to schedule these events in a manner to avoid an unbalanced impact on classes.  The school security officer and I would look at the monthly school calendar to choose the best dates and time.  For example, if a pep rally was going to shorten an afternoon blue day period, any drill that occurred during that time frame would be held in the morning of a red day.  Similar care was taken with Honor Roll parties, class meetings and other worthy but time-consuming events.  The effectiveness of any of these activities was never lessened.  The only item diminished was the negative impact on the overall educational process.

Not perfection, just a little bit better

Teachers are a prickly lot.  They do not like surprises, are angered by disruptions, and absolutely loath surprise disruptions.  The best believe time with their students is sacred.  There are, however, a number of very important activities within a school year that are not focused on the curriculum and will reduce class time.  The task is to find a way to blend all aspects of a school in a manner that maximizes the success of each individual endeavor while minimizing the negative impact on the whole. With a significant amount of advanced planning, cooperation and focus, approaches can be taken which will meet this challenge. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:44 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Recently the Washington Post ran an article featuring a high school sponsored poker club.  The article appeared to support the idea that poker clubs were a legitimate way to help students learn mathematical concepts. Although using the structure of poker to create a lesson in probability is a valid and effective technique; creating a club that is dedicated to playing poker and then claiming that it is academically suitable demonstrates extremely poor judgment on the part of the adults involved.     

Teaching the wrong things

When asked about the group, the principal of the school gave his support to the concept.  He told the Post:   

“We know the kids could play outside of school, but when they're here, we have the opportunity to show them how to play responsibly and to show them how the game relates to their education.”

While the rules of poker are based in large part on the laws of probability, teaching students how to play the game has far more to do with gambling than mathematics.  It was clear that the “math first” message was becoming obscured when posters advertising the club featuring pictures of poker playing dogs smoking cigarettes began to appear in the building.  The principal ordered them torn down.   This gesture eliminated the pictures but not the inherent problem.  

A very good teaching tool

When I taught probability to my pre-calculus students I regularly used poker hands as a portion of my lessons.  The standard deck of playing cards with its 13 different values, four suits and two colors presents unlimited possibilities for constructing problems and illustrations.  One of the classroom activities consisted of dividing the students into small groups to determine the probability of seven specific five-card poker hands.  After mathematically computing their answers, the results would be compared and the method for computing the correct probabilities was demonstrated.  The concluding activity was to rank the value of the hands correlated to the diminishing probability of their occurrence.  It was then determined that this student-created listing was exactly the same as the actual rules of the game.Instead of pulling out the poker chips after this worksheet was completed, the next step was to expand the understanding of the probability involved.  For example, it had been previously determined that the likelihood of having five cards and no matches was 50.7%; the chance that there would be one match was 42.3%.  It was now time to turn the process upside down.  If a person was given fourteen cards what were the chances of no matches?  The answer, of course, is zero since there are only thirteen different values. The follow up problem was how many cards must be dealt in order for it to be more likely to have a pair than to have no matches?”  (The answer is seven.  Variations of this question were given on the chapter test.)

While there were lengthy conversations about playing cards in my classes no deck was ever in the room.   We did not talk about any strategies for playing these games and most certainly would not encourage anyone to do so. The major point of emphasis was the purity of the mathematics involved. Because of their precision, these numbers have withstood the test of time in a game that has centuries of history. 

Sending the wrong message

Poker clubs designed with the alleged intent of teaching mathematics are found at colleges around the country.  The idea began at Harvard Law School.  There are, however, vast differences between the reasoning abilities of graduate students and those of high school students.  The high school math teacher who hosts the aforementioned club in his classroom speaks to the age difference, “The older kids realize that it's about odds and probability," he says, "the younger ones just want to win.”

High stakes gambling on poker has been glamorized on television and on the Internet.  Having teenagers play this game of chance and giving them any indication that they are becoming mathematically equipped to control outcomes is not only incorrect but potentially dangerous. 

Should educators be concerned about youth gambling?

The following are some conclusions from a study of 1000 randomly selected adolescents 13-17 years old by the Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation.   (Carlson & Moore, 1998)

• Seventy-five percent of teens in the study reported having gambled.
• One in ten teens was an at-risk gambler.
• Rates of problem gambling among youth were 2 to 4 times higher than the rates for adult gambling.
• Youth can hide gambling problems well.  There are no outward, physical signs.

The article in the Washington Post quoted one seventeen-year-old who had a large pile of chips in front of him as saying, “I don't know whether math class is helping me with poker, or whether poker is helping me with math.”  A very good question that I am not sure the adults at his school can answer.   

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:37 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Previously, Mel Riddile has asked whether there is a schism within high school faculties as a result of the continual emphasis on standardized testing.   He quotes a teacher who believes there is such a problem—the core teachers feel they are receiving an unfair level of scrutiny while the non-core believe they are being ignored. 

A perfect storm of discontent  

There is little doubt that the public spotlight is squarely on a school’s standardized test scores and the teachers whose students produce them.  Schools are accredited, ranked, and publically evaluated based on the results of a few tests in a limited number of subjects.  Virtually every conversation concerning teacher evaluation begins, and too often ends, with a desire to use student test scores as a major component. With the misguided encouragement of educational leaders some newspapers have ranked teachers based on their students’ results. Virtually every discussion of merit pay includes student scores as a primary consideration.

It is not surprising that this fixation on certain numbers has split teaching staffs into two separate camps.  The pressure on those who are responsible for tested classes is immense and often oppressive.  As it ratchets up during the year, these teachers become increasingly resentful of their colleagues who do not have to deal with similar issues.  Intensifying these sentiments is the irony that so much attention is being given to a group that represents less than one third of a typical high school staff.

These ingredients result in the great disconnect within the teaching community.  If test results are a must in evaluation and merit pay, what does that say about those who do not produce such scores?  Many teachers are forced to ask some tough questions.  Do policymakers mistakenly believe that all educators produce such scores?   Or worse, do they feel that creating an evaluation for those teachers is not a critical concern?  Likewise, should they be excluded from merit pay consideration?  Regardless of the reasons, the message they hear is clear—if you do not create standardized test data within your classroom, you are relegated to a lesser status.

This educational caste system gets worse.  It turns out that not all standardized tests scores are equal.  NCLB focuses on only the results of math and English exams.  The exclusion of science and social studies from this mandate places the teachers of those subjects in a difficult position. While they have the same curriculum pressures as math and English colleagues, their work is clearly not considered as important. The state of Virginia has affirmed this stance.  While a score of 400 on the end-of-course exams is required for a “pass”, the state established a special policy for students in the two non-NCLB curricula—if a student takes the exam twice and scores at least 375 on one of the attempts, they are eligible for a “locally verified credit”.  The teacher and school are still charged with a failing score but a student who has mastered less than 35% of the material is declared successful. 

No cures but some ways to help

While it is impossible for any school to totally alter the educational culture, there are steps that can be taken to lessen the chasm between core and non-core teachers.  As Dr. Riddile noted in his post, the implementation of a literacy program at his school was woven into the entire curriculum.  This approach was the result of both necessity and design.  In order to be successful, this initiative needed to be incorporated into all subjects rather than implemented by the English department alone.  By asking every discipline to embed literacy into all of their classroom activities, staff members had an equal stake in a critically important program.  Every meeting, email or memo in regards to this program was appropriate for the entire staff.

The school took a number of additional steps to mitigate this problem.  The goal of each of these concepts was simple—demonstrate to all teachers that every class was important.  These included:

The end of year testing schedule did not negatively impact non-tested classes. Many schools adopted testing schedules that would involve massive disruptions to all classes for an extended period of time.  Considering that more than two thirds of the classes in our building did not have end-of-course exams such an approach was deemed to be unacceptable.  Our test schedule was designed to ensure that every class would meet during the entire testing window.  The length of the periods would be altered to allow appropriate time for the exams but no class was lost.  Also since testing was done within the period the subject was taught, no students were pulled from other rooms to test. 

Discussions of SOL (state assessment) issues were limited to staff members who were directly affected.  At department chair meetings, the core department chairs would meet as a group after the conclusion of the topics pertaining to all subjects.  Likewise, faculty meetings were focused on topics of general interest.

Another possible solution

Authentic success in almost any endeavor is the result of an outstanding team effort.  Improvement in standardized test score is no exception.  Why not acknowledge this achievement as a school-wide effort?  Instead of awarding merit pay to individual teachers whose students exceed certain standards, a practice that can cause divisions within a staff, reward the entire school when the student body attains prescribed benchmarks.  Either give a bonus to all staff members or make the award in the form of extra funding for the school and its programs.   While such an approach would not end all friction among teachers, it would certainly be a good starting point.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:04 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

For years Mel Riddile and I shared the belief that there were a number of factors that could have a significant impact on the success or failure of students on standardized tests.  When scheduling the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) exams we took great care to create a positive test-taking environment.  Now there is research that indicates such concerns were justified. 

A recent study of the results of SAT testing in Indiana has found that each change between daylight savings and standard time adversely affected student performance.  Indiana was chosen because counties in the state could independently choose whether or not to participate in daylight savings.  This option created data from two different groups of students—those who changed their clocks and those who did not. 

The Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics found that students who lived in areas which used daylight savings had scores that were consistently 16 points lower than testers who did not have a time change.  A loss of this magnitude could be critical and should serve as a warning to anyone responsible for planning test schedules.  

Some points to consider

While the SAT is different in many ways from end of course barrier exams, the lessons to be learned from this research are clear.  If a simple one-hour shift can demonstrably cause negative consequences, it is incumbent on school leaders to take great care in creating a plan for large scale testing.  Here are some suggestions that worked at my school.

Keep the testing areas small.   Many schools in our district would place hundreds of students in large testing areas such as the cafeteria or gymnasium.  As a direct result of their size these locations would have high levels of confusion, distractions and poor discipline.  To avoid those complications we designed our testing to place students into classrooms, computer labs, or small common areas.  The rule was that no more than three classes (about 75 students) could be placed at any one site. 

Maintain a testing schedule similar to the regular school day.  Rather than alter the normal sequence of classes we built our plan to work within the framework of the traditional day.  Classes met in the same order as they had all year.  The testing periods on a particular day would be lengthened to provide additional time.  No class whether it was an SOL course or not was eliminated during the entire testing window. More importantly this procedure ensured that students who had a tested course during the second block of the day took their exam in the second block of the day.  Schools that implemented special schemes for testing would often lose all sense of continuity.  Students who took a subject in the afternoon might take the exam in the morning or a morning class might be tested after lunch.  Could such a variation cause lower scores?   Think daylight savings time.

Have teachers proctor their own students.  Another advantage of maintaining the normal class sequence is that it allows teachers to work directly with their classes.  Special schedules will usually preclude this possibility.  There are many good reasons for keeping teachers and students together.   Students feel more comfortable asking questions of someone with whom they have a personal relationship.  Teachers will do whatever is necessary to ensure that their students have the best possible circumstances to test.  And there are far fewer discipline issues when proctors know the individuals in the room. 

Place classes from the same curriculum in a testing site.  The untimed SOL exams took dramatically different amounts of time to complete.  A typical Algebra 1 group would take more than two hours to finish while most Biology 1 students would be done in an hour.  Whether a school’s policy is to let early finishers leave or to require that those who are finished wait for extended periods of time, the academic climate in the testing area will be negatively affected.  Also, the initial verbal directions for tests can vary from one discipline to another thus adding to the confusion.  And finally, teachers from the same department are more likely to be able to work together smoothly.

Create the testing schedule well in advance.  In order to plan effectively teachers and students should be informed of the schedule as early as possible.  Whether an exam is on day one or day seven of an eight day testing window is significant.  Our goal was to always distribute the schedule at a department chair meeting two months in advance of testing and answer questions at a faculty meeting prior to the dates.

Not easy, but critical

A testing program that maximizes performance is especially important for certain groups of students.  Individuals in ELL or those with special needs are continually straddling the line between success and failure on standardized tests.  Every advantage or disadvantage a school provides in the design of its testing program can change the trajectory of these young lives.   Such an approach is often not the most convenient choice for the adults in the building.  A student-oriented scheme requires intricate planning, extensive explanations, multiple revisions and demands full participation by every staff member.  But these concerns are a small and reasonable price to pay for our students. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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

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)

"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)

“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

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

More than anything else, including higher pay (45%), 40,000 teachers surveyed reported that they want supportive leadership (68%). The question is, what is supportive leadership? Customer satisfaction is an important indicator of quality service, corporations put a lot of time, effort, and money into surveys that ask their customers “How did we do?” So, why not ask teachers who have worked with school leaders about their views on supportive leadership?

In Simply the Best, The Teacher Leader does just that. A 40-year classroom veteran and teacher-leader should be a good judge of supportive leadership. In his profile of Barbara Douds, The Teacher Leader identifies a number of Barbara’s key leadership qualities including:

“A listener, a learner, and active participant” – “She would talk with each chair, listen to their concerns and goals, and acquired the information necessary to be fluent in the most pressing issues of that subject area.  She would then work with the chairs to formulate the best approaches for the guidance staff to assist in implementing their programs.” Teachers want collaboration. They want to share. They want a partnership. Teachers don’t want leaders who ‘simply follow dictates or who ask no question, seek no answers and most of all give no advice.’

Trust and Respect – The Teacher Leader points to one of Michael Fullan’s Six Secrets of Change, “transparency” of data, as a key element in gaining the trust of the staff. Everyone had the same numbers and they knew that the numbers were correct. In addition, he points to Barbara being “viewed by all as fair and honest” as keys to her ability to earn trust and respect.

No surprises! – Supportive leadership (collaboration) is not asking teachers what they want and then doing what is convenient—Administration By Convenience (ABCs). In a true partnership, each party consults the other when making key decisions.

Her attention to detail and “her work ethic was contagious.”

Emotionally supportive – No matter what occurred, “her demeanor was always calm and her mood was always even.” Students need a low-threat classroom to learn. Teachers must know that, no matter what, it is never personal.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:37 AM | 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 post is the first in a series highlighting those individuals, who in my opinion were the most effective in their particular roles.  The goal of these analysis is to illuminate those qualities that make professions in these critical positions successful and maximize their positive influence in a school.

I have always viewed the position of Guidance Director as the second most important person in a building ranking only below the Principal.  A school with an ineffective leader of guidance will quickly become mired in a myriad of problems which will handicap everyone—students, teachers, administrators and parents—in impede the potential of the school.

As a teacher I interacted with nearly a dozen different directors and in my role as a department chair I had direct contact with seven.  While many were very successful, Barbara Douds was clearly the best.  I had a strong personal relationship with Barbara, but it was the skill set and the expectations that she brought to her position that made her excel. 

Why was she the best Director of Guidance?

She was a quick and willing learner.  In many ways her approach to her job made her virtually an assistant department chair for every subject.  She would talk with each chair, listen to their concerns and goals, and acquired the information necessary to be fluent in the most pressing issues of that subject area.  She would then work with the chairs to formulate the best approaches for the guidance staff to assist in implementing their programs.  Because of this deep involvement in the fundamentals of each curriculum when questions or conflicts arose she was capable of giving meaningful advice.  Too many guidance directors view their jobs as “data entry”.   They see their role as to simply follow the dictates of the staff and administration especially when creating the master schedule.  They ask no questions, seek no answers and most of all give no advice.  To have someone in the role of guidance director who is a valued consultant is a profound strength for a school.

She had everyone’s trust and respect.   Both in her actions and in her words, it was clear that there was no favoritism in the decisions made in the guidance office.  The guiding principle in every choice was what was best for the students.  When given an answer of “no” to a request every staff member knew that determination was based upon careful reflection, a full knowledge of all relevant facts and an unbiased appraisal of priorities.  The greatest measure of this respect was during the formation of the master schedule.  Based on the projections made by the director of guidance, department chairs were allocated a certain number of sections.   Within those numbers the chair could distribute the classes as they chose.  While on many occasions I might be disappointed in the number of sections I would never question the fairness or equity of them.  Such transparency is critical to the morale and cohesiveness of a building.

She accepted every responsibility that was inherent in such a critical job. There were no August surprises.  I never returned to school to discover that the number of students enrolled in a subject had risen or fallen by a significant number.  Long before that would occur I would have received a phone call to inform me of the change and a discussion would ensue to determine the appropriate course of action.  Having a guidance director who monitored such fluctuations ensured that all such adjustments were done in an orderly fashion and would be based on sound educational reasoning.  On many occasions, I unfortunately had experienced just the opposite situation.  Two weeks prior to the beginning of school massive shifts had occurred in enrollment and changes had to be made across every subject area.  These last minute changes had a negative effect on both student and teaching schedules, creating negative impacts that could have been avoided but that could last a long time. 

She had an amazing work ethic.  For weeks at a time it appeared that she never left the building.  The length of every task she undertook was measured by completion never by time.  If evening hours, weekends and lunch periods were needed to refine the master schedule, consult with students, meet with parents or staff, she would be found on the job.  Her work ethic was contagious.  The counselors’ office lights were on long before the start of the school day and were not turned off until well after the final bell.  They viewed their role as people who helped both students and teachers resolve issues.  Unlike many buildings where tensions develop between teachers and counselors, due to the efforts of the director both groups had a mutual respect and trust.  Such a relationship results in the ability to consolidate efforts that will profoundly benefit the students.

She had the perfect temperament.  Though her job was never easy, her demeanor was always calm and her mood was always even.  When I entered her office I never worried about whether she was having a good day or very bad one.  Regardless of any prior events, I always knew her response would be professional.

The Bottom Line

The best directors of guidance are directly engaged in all areas of the curriculum, are viewed by all as fair and honest, and are an invaluable resource for information and advice.

Next:  The Best District Instructional Leader

Posted by Mel Riddile at 07:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

“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

"Culture eats strategies for breakfast."--Peter Drucker

Great schools can be average in some areas, but great schools cannot have a glaring weakness and be considered great. Great schools find a way to solve the problems that stifle or debilitate good schools. Teacher absenteeism and substitute teachers are problems faced by every school. Like every school, the solution is in the culture—attitudes, beliefs, mindsets, expectations, and relationships—of the entire school.

Here is the reality. When teachers are absent, students lose valuable instructional time. No matter how qualified they are, substitute teachers do not improve student achievement. According to the latest from The Teacher Leader, “When I was absent I knew that my classes would regress no matter who was the substitute or how well I planned.”

A recent study by the Columbia University School of Business offers some interesting findings:

• Substitutes are worse than the regular teacher. “In teaching, the person with whom an absent teacher is replaced is clearly worse in a substantial way. Substitute teachers are less likely to be highly skilled, since otherwise the chances are she would already have found a full-time teaching job. Even if a substitute is highly skilled, there is a start-up cost: just because someone has a degree in math doesn’t mean she can hop in and be a great sixth-grade math teacher.”
• Students do worse in years when their teacher takes more time off.
• “When a teacher takes an extended medical leave, it causes a drop in math and English test scores on par with putting a rookie teacher in the place of a teacher with four years of experience for an entire year.”
• Shorter absences are more detrimental than longer ones. Ten one-day absences over the course of a year were found to lower student scores more than when a teacher missed two consecutive weeks. 
• Incentives for teachers to not be absent don’t work.

A Short Story

I received a call from the district’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources. He was calling to arrange a time for his staff to visit our high school. Unbeknownst to me, our school had the highest rate of substitute coverage for absent teachers in a district of approximately 270 schools.

In our school, when a teacher was absent, we had substitute coverage approximately 96% of the time. I was shocked to learn that other high schools averaged 65% coverage. In addition, our school had the highest teacher attendance among the almost 30 high schools in the district.

This came as a shock to the district staff because our school was, by far, the poorest high school in the district. In addition, our location in the older, eastern, more urban section of our district made it difficult for our teachers and most substitutes to get to. Because most affordable housing was located in the outer suburbs, many of our teachers drove past five or six high schools on the way to work each morning. So, attracting teachers was difficult and it was even more difficult to locate substitute teachers.

The district staff arrived expecting to learn that there was a simple, scalable solution to teacher absenteeism and substitute coverage that would solve all the district’s problems, and, of course, they were disappointed. Not one of them had ever worked in a school. Thus, they were not aware of the fact that, because schools are complex social systems each with their own unique DNA, no school problem ever has a simple solution.

Our Secret Solution

To begin with, we never started out to reduce teacher absenteeism. Our challenge arose in the form of a teacher complaint. Our teachers objected to having to cover their colleagues’ classes when they were absent and a substitute teacher could not be obtained. Thus, while arranging for classroom coverage was an inconvenience for administrators, it was a real problem for the teachers who provided coverage for the classrooms. Not only were the teachers losing valuable planning time but their entire school day was disrupted, not to mention the fact the lost instructional time. So, we worked with our school leadership team and over time, we came up with a workable system that, in the end, made life better for everyone.

Mindset – We started with the belief that teachers were trusted professionals. We told them that, if they needed to be absent, we would not question them.

Trust - We trusted the teachers and we asked them to trust us. It turns out that in most schools, even though teachers knew in advance that they would miss school, they waited until the last minute to call for a substitute. Last minute calls put them at the end of the line and obtaining a substitute less likely. Teachers didn’t trust the administration and the administration didn’t trust the teachers.

Current Reality - We simply pointed out the reality of the situation. There were twice as many teachers absent in our district on Thursday and Friday as there were on Monday or Tuesday. Therefore, it would be likely that, if teachers were absent on Thursday or Friday, no substitute would be obtained. When teachers were absent, and we could not secure a substitute, their colleagues would have to cover their classes.

Commitment - We appealed to their collegiality and commitment to each other. We asked them to do their best to work with us to arrange for a substitute as far in advance as possible. We kept our promise and never questioned an absence.

Ownership – We impressed on our staff, that if we all worked together, we could make life better for all of us. Everyone had a part in the solution. This was not about control, but about cooperation.

Obtain Resources and Remove Barriers – We assigned a front office staff member to coordinate substitutes with the teachers. Not only was this person helpful to the teachers but she welcomed every substitute with a smiling face and cultivated a relationship with them. In addition, she diligently developed a list of top substitutes and distributed the list and updates to the entire staff.

Relationship Building – Our teachers welcomed the substitutes and as many of the subs told me “treated me as though I were a part of the staff.” Our teachers did treat them well. They welcomed them, checked in on them during the day, and invited them to eat lunch. In addition, when the teachers found a “good sub” they made sure to get their name and phone number. They would often take the initiative to contact them and arrange for the person to substitute well in advance.

End of the Story

We trusted our teachers and treated them like the professionals they were. They trusted us and cared about their students and fellow teachers. They took ownership of the problem and the solution. Our teachers didn’t feel as though they needed to sneak around or feel guilty because they were absent. Many of the substitutes developed a loyalty to the school and would only sub for us. They felt wanted and appreciated. In this scenario everyone wins. We had the lowest teacher absence rate and the highest percentage of class coverage by substitutes and the best pool of quality substitute teachers in our entire school district. Most importantly, we faced a challenge together and we solved another problem by trusting each other and working together.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:46 AM | Permalink

I am on vacation where we have access to basic cable. As I was channel surfing, I saw a promotion running for Christmas gifts. The channel was QVC, which apparently runs an annual “Christmas in July” promotion.

This reminded me of a conversation I had a few months ago with a high school faculty. This was a school that had been restructured. All teachers had to reapply for their jobs and only half were rehired. The school also had a new principal and a new administrative staff.

We were discussing accountability and one teacher mentioned that the students were “Christmas-treeing” the tests. While I had never heard the term “Christmas-treeing,” I quickly figured out that the students were not taking the tests seriously and were using the answer sheets to create drawings. In our discussion, the teachers talked about their frustration with the lack of student accountability.

The school, the teachers, and the administrators were being held accountable for the results of the test, but the students were not. The bottom line is that the careers of these educators as well as the reputation of the school and the school district depended on the good will of the students. If they didn’t feel like taking the test, there was nothing that could be done.

This is not the first time that I have had this discussion. I worked with one district in which all the high school principals were fired or replaced and hundreds of teachers fired or transferred on the basis of student test scores and that state had absolutely no student accountability.

In yet another state, a high school principal lamented that his students inexplicably decided that they were not going to put forth their best effort on the state tests. Despite the school sending record numbers of students to four-year colleges, the high school was placed on a state list of “low-performing schools.”

I worked in a high-pressure, high-accountability state that held high schools accountability by using eleven end-of-course exams to calculate adequate yearly progress. However, students were also held accountable. The tests were used to award course credit and as barriers to graduation. In this context, everyone, students, teachers, and administrators took the tests seriously. In the early days of the state program, only the schools were held accountable, and it was difficult to get the students motivated to take the tests. I must add that our teachers had excellent relationships with our students and, in most cases, the students would put forth effort simply because their teachers cared so much. However, we had time to build a school personalized school culture that emphasized the importance of student-teacher relationships. I cannot imagine what it would be like to go into a new school that was beginning to develop a positive culture and having to depend on the good will of the students when the staff barely had time to get to know them.

Notice that I didn’t even mention student attendance and the inconsistencies in holding students accountable for regular attendance. I will save that for another discussion.

From experience I have learned that unless everyone—students, teachers, administrators, schools, and school districts-- is held accountable for student performance, there is not true accountability. Unless everyone is working together toward a common goal, we have no accountability system. Instead, we have a scapegoating system.

The following is a summary of information on state accountability systems, exit exams, and end-of-course exams as provided by the Education Commission of the States:

Exit Exams

• States with exit exam policies require students to achieve a passing score on each subject tested in the exit exam, as well as fulfill all other graduation requirements, to receive a high school diploma.
• Exit exams vary greatly from state to state in numerous ways, including the level of content tested (upper middle grades in some states, while upper high school grades in others) and the opportunities for students who do not pass (from none to numerous and detailed appeals procedures and alternative methods of demonstrating competency).
• School accountability: Nearly every state with an exit exam uses it as a means of measuring school performance.
• Course credit: Six states use exit exams as a component of the course grade.
• Level of diploma: Six states use scores as a criterion for an honors or other advanced diploma or endorsement.
• Scholarship eligibility: Three states use the scores from exit exams to determine scholarship eligibility.
• As of June 2007, 24 states and the District of Columbia do not have (and have no plans to implement) exit exams, citing adequate means to measure student performance and academic rigor in existing state assessments and other mechanisms.
• Currently, 22 states require passage of state exit exams as a component of high school graduation requirements. By 2012, the number of states with exit exams will grow to 26.

Subjects Tested

• The subjects tested in state exit exams vary greatly by state, but nearly all include a reading/writing component and a mathematics component.
• Some states are phasing in tests over time to increase the scope of subjects tested. For example, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) currently includes reading and mathematics, and passage of a writing test will be required starting with the class of 2010.

End-of-course Exams

• End-of-course exams are given at the end of a specific course (for example, after completing Biology I) rather than at a particular grade level (i.e. 10) or at a single point in time during the high school career. In contrast, standards-based exams are given at a specific grade level, for example, at the end of grade 10. Ten states use end-of-course exams for exit purposes.
• States that use exit exams for other purposes including:
• School accountability: Nearly every state with an exit exam uses it as a means of measuring student performance.
• Course credit: Six states use exit exams as a component of the course grade.
• Level of diploma: Six states use scores as a criterion for an honors or other advanced diploma or endorsement.
• Scholarship eligibility: Three states use the scores from exit exams to determine scholarship eligibility.
• 16 states require the scores from the exit exams to be printed on the students' transcripts.

Graduation Requirements

• 22 states currently use exit exams as a component of their graduation requirements.
• By 2012, four more states will use exit exams:
• Arkansas- beginning school year 2009-2010
• Maryland- beginning with the class of 2009
• Oklahoma- beginning with the class of 2012
• Washington- beginning with the class of 2008
• States are slowly phasing in new subjects to be tested in their exit exams. 
• Ten states use end-of-course exams for exit purposes.  
• North Carolina uses both end-of-course and standards based assessments.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:33 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The following is an example of a type of request I always dreaded.  “We want you and two of your teachers to attend a meeting next Tuesday.  But don’t worry, subs will be provided.”  There was always the misperception by administrators that the big issue for teachers was being charged with leave, not about missing a day of school.   Let me be clear—good teachers hate being out of the building on a school day.  When I was absent I knew that my classes would regress no matter who was the substitute or how well I planned.  If I was teaching a freshman class there was an excellent chance it would be days before all the disciplinary forms could be processed.  And no matter what level class I missed, preparation was a huge time sink.  I once calculated that I spent at least two minutes in preparation for every one minute I would miss.  And the hours of advanced organization would not change the ultimate result—my students would suffer.

While these observations are anecdotal, they have been validated by hard data in a recent study of the New York City Schools.  Jonah Rockoff, the Sidney Taurel Associate Professor of Business in the Finance and Economics Division at Columbia Business School and doctoral student Mariesa Herrmann of Columbia University’s Department of Economics were given unprecedented access to the records of the NYC school system to study the impact of teacher absences on student performance. 

The Major Findings

While anticipating a drop in classroom productivity when a teacher was absent, Rochoff was surprised at the actual amount of impact. “When a teacher takes an extended medical leave, it causes a drop in math and English test scores on par with putting a rookie teacher in the place of a teacher with four years of experience for an entire year.”  Of greater concern to administrators is the fact that shorter absences are more detrimental than longer ones.  Ten one-day absences over the course of a year were found to lower student scores more than when a teacher misses two consecutive weeks.  The rationale was in those circumstances there is a tendency for better advanced planning and an improve quality of substitute teacher.  However, the data clearly indicated that these episodes, too, were devastating on student achievement.

One of the most interesting conclusions was that it was counterproductive to create incentives for teachers to not be absent.  According to Rochoff, ““Presenteeism — where I’m there but I’m not really there — is not a solution for absenteeism. Do we really want someone teaching when she is sick and not giving it her all?”

What Can a School Do?

Based on the clear evidence that teacher absences hurt student achievement there are a number of steps a school and district can take to offset these negative consequences.  Before the start of the school year there should be an honest and open conversation between the staff and administration concerning the detrimental effects of teachers missing class.  It must be clearly stated that the solution is not to eliminate all absences or to chastise those who miss a day for any reason good or bad.  Instead, what must be established is an educational environment, which will address methods to alleviate the ill-effects that result when a teacher is out of the building.  Here are some suggestions that could be implemented to reduce these problems:

Creating an environment that will attract and retain the best substitute teachers.  In my former school we made a concerted effort to ensure that a substitute teacher’s experience in our building was a positive one.  We would treat them with respect and not abuse them by making them cover classes other than the ones they had been assigned.  We strongly encouraged our teachers to have effective and productive lesson plans and asked for direct teacher feedback on whether the substitute had been effective or not.  One individual in the office was tasked with working with the subs so that she could develop a positive, personal relationship with them.

Utilize retirees, parents and the community.  Teachers who have retired from your school have a wealth of classroom experience, appreciate the need for good substitutes and have time.  Cultivate them especially for long-term positions.  Likewise, there may be parents who are in a similar position as well as former teachers who for various reasons are not interested in a full-time job but would still like to be able to work in education.

Have “sub buddies.”  Teachers in each department should pair off by teaching assignment at the beginning of the school year.   The person responsible for subs would be made aware of these groups and when one is absent the buddy would be available to assist a substitute with the day’s lesson.

Develop lesson plans by teams.  If there is an unexpected absence in a Chemistry class, members of that curriculum team should be able to provide additional input to make the lesson plans more effective.

Hire full-time substitutes.  At the district level individuals should be hired on a full-time basis and report each day to a specified school.  This approach could be cost effective.  In a school with a staff of 100, the addition of three such employees would reduce the number of last minute phone calls; put subs in classrooms who know the school’s bell schedule, philosophy and student body.  On those rare occasions when they are not needed, there are many tasks they could perform within the building. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Mel Riddile has written consistently on the importance of tapping into the “Teacher Leaders” in a building.  These individuals, while not necessarily carrying a specific title or rank, are the ones who have the knowledge and practical understanding of the mechanics of a school to improve the educational environment in significant and varied ways.  This past week I heard of an excellent example of effective use of such expertise.

A nearby school was establishing its testing schedule for end-of-course (EOC) state exams.  Two testing periods, each two hours in duration, had been established per day.  One exam would be given in the 8 a.m. block; the second would begin after lunch at noon.  It would conclude at 2:00 p.m. five minutes prior to the end of the school day.  Because of the size of the various testing groups, it was determined by the administrative staff that it would be most convenient in terms of space available to test Geometry in the morning and Algebra 2 in the afternoon.  While this plan would appear reasonable on paper for an Algebra 2 teacher in the building it had disaster written all over it.

Based on a decade of testing he was well aware that students taking the Algebra 2 test tended to take longer than students in any other math exam.  In addition, since many were seniors they tended to be less motivated since passing was not crucial for many of them who had already succeeded in the two previous math tests.  If the end of the school day arrived and they had not finished the untimed test, the likelihood was they would simply stop and go home.  He lobbied the decision makers in the building to switch the two tests.  After a significant amount of discussion the change was made.

Last week the exams were administered.  At ten o’clock when the testing block for Algebra ended, more than one third (70 of 175) of the students needed extra time.  The last student was not done until four hours had elapsed.  With nowhere to go, all of the exams were completed.  Meanwhile in the noon Geometry test, barely 1% (7 of 500) was still working at the 2:00 deadline. 

Leadership and critical knowledge can be found throughout a building.  And most importantly, students are the primary beneficiaries.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:00 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

There was a time not that long ago that the mere mention of summer school sent my fellow principals and me looking for an exit. Our district would rotate summer school sites from school to school and principals would devise every type of excuse to keep from being one of those sites. The idea of having someone invade our building for an entire summer was unthinkable. Having a different administrative and teaching staff in our house was viewed as a punishment.

Then accountability hit. The focus shifted from what adults wanted to what our students needed. Our school was diverse and poor. Over time, we discovered that our students could achieve at high levels if they were given the additional time they needed to master course content. Conversely, if we held learning time constant for all students, we would ensure that a significant proportion of them would fail.

It turned out that learning time was more critical for our students than improved teaching methods or smaller classes. That is not to say that methods or class setting are not important, but, for our poor, under-resourced students, learning time proved to be the most important factor. We learned that improving instruction was an ongoing process that would never end, but, if some of our students learned some subjects at different rates, improved methods could only go so far.

As a result of what we had learned about instructional time and student success, I did a complete about face on the issue of summer school. The turning point for me came when an analysis of our data indicated that our students were actually losing ground over the summer. All the hard work and progress we made during the regular school year was eaten away by ten weeks of summer learning loss.

In fact, I became such a strong believer in varying learning time that I was willing to publicly challenge our superintendent by saying, “Just give me the time that our students spend riding the bus to and from central summer school sites, and we will double their achievement. If our students could be in our school with our teachers during the summer, we will not only increase enrollment, but we will significantly increase student achievement.”

To my surprise he said yes. Not surprisingly, our student achievement skyrocketed. Instead of 10% of our students attending summer school, we had 30% attending. Instead of our second language students losing English language skills over the summer, they actually gained in English acquisition. Instead of summer school being an afterthought, it became an integral part of our program because it met the needs of our student in the following ways:

Catch Up – Students, particularly our second language students, needed extra time to acquire English language skills. Thus, they tended to need more time to fulfill requirements for graduation. Even though these students were fluent in two languages, they viewed themselves as failures if they did not graduate when they were eighteen. Summer school afforded these students a way to squeeze five years of high school into four calendar years.

Extra Time – Some students, particularly many of our math students needed an extra semester to master algebra. In our state, all students had to pass Algebra I and the Algebra I end-of-course exam in order to graduate. Allowing students the option of completing a course in summer school dramatically increased the success rate of our students without lowering standards.

Make Up – We set a goal that all ninth graders would graduate to tenth grade. We had learned that reducing failure and the need to repeat courses was a win-win for everyone. However, no matter how hard we worked to keep students from falling behind, some did. In addition, many students who had transferred into our school had failed one or more core courses in their previous school. For these students, summer school was a necessity.

Credit Recovery - Summer school was the keystone of our credit recovery efforts. The problem is that, in a state with end-of-course exams, our students had to do more than complete a course by putting in seat time. They actually had to learn something and demonstrate that learning on a state exam.

Get ahead – Many of our students were schooled in other countries and lost a year or more converting into our system. In addition, some students were scheduled to return to their native land and needed to graduate in less than four years. Our high student mobility meant that many students lost learning time and credits moving from school to school. Summer school offered these students the opportunity to graduate early and to move on to college.

Enrichment – Summer school provided opportunities for students with crowded schedules to take elective or enrichment classes during the summer.

The Bottom Line

If we are really serious about raising student achievement, we must address variations in learning time for our students. Holding time constant guarantees that achievement will vary widely, particularly for under-resourced students. Making learning time the variable will ensure that we move much closer to learning becoming a constant for each and every student.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In his post, “Control or Cooperation”, Mel Riddile created a significant amount of discussion when he declared that there are two viable relationships for the administrative and teaching staffs.  From his perspective, school leaders can choose either to demand control with a subsequent loss of cooperation or pursue additional cooperation while accepting a lesser degree of control.  Riddile argues that the latter is the far better direction for educational success.  An important group shares his view.  A recent article by Nick Anderson in the Washington Post, “Survey: Supportive leadership helps retain top teachers” reports that when 40,000 teachers were asked to assess what was more important to them increased pay or more administrative support the results were surprisingly lopsided.  Two out of every three of those surveyed believed that the positive assistance of administrators was more important than the amount of money in their paycheck.  This preference for backing over bucks reinforces Riddile’s assessment.

Two More Important “C” Words           

While I strongly agree with Riddile, I also believe there are two other words that need to be brought into the conversation.  Those words are “coordination” and “communication”.   One of the greatest obstacles to synchronizing the work of the administrative and teaching teams is the fact that the two groups operate on inherently different timetables.   This disconnect is especially true at schools that are on “block” schedules.  The different days are usually designated by two colors such as “green” and “blue”.  The problem is quite simple—while the “color” of the day is critical to the teacher it is of little relevance to an administrator. For the vast majority of classroom teachers a green day is very different from a blue one.  Weeks in advance lesson plans are developed, tests are scheduled, and assignments are made with the specific dates in mind.

A Cold Front Collides With a Warm One

This different view of the school day needs to be taken into consideration by the administrative team.  Earlier this year a teacher complained to me that when he looked at his school calendar he noticed that within the first twelve weeks there were four different days when the bell schedule was to be changed resulting in the loss of two to three hours of class time.  While all of the dates had a valid reason for the adjustment the problem was that all four occurred on the same color day.  Later he realized that both the fall pep rally and class meetings were on the same block day as the other four.  When he brought this problem to the attention of an assistant principal he was told that it was too late to change.   This example brings us back to the original premise:  attaining cooperation also requires coordination and communication.

Establishing the school calendar may be the responsibility of the administrative team but they are not the group most directly affected by those decisions.  Consequently, they need to aggressively solicit the input of the teaching staff.   When there is a complaint they need to listen and learn.  If no change can be made the reasons need to be given in detail along with a promise to avoid such problems in the future. 

How important are issues like the one just described?  Polling of tens of thousands of teachers made it very clear that the vast majority view the positive support of the administrative team as more important than an increase in the money in their pocket.  Could there be a clearer mandate for making every effort to improve cooperation through communication and coordination at all levels?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:04 PM | Permalink