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

What is tracking?

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

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

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

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

My Take On Grouping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:07 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

Q: Why do school reformers ignore poverty?

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

1. They have no one to blame.

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

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

Q: What are the affects of poverty on children?

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

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

2. Stress - Money problems increase family stress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategies 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:42 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:12 AM | Permalink

Principals and teachers working in diverse, high-poverty schools are constantly challenged, even on a normal school day. In addition to the need to raise the achievement of each and every one of our students, our school had to overcome a number of externally imposed challenges. In fact, our teachers designed a t-shirt to commemorate our decade-long series of ordeals.

The back of the shirt read:

WE SURVIVED...

Seven years of renovation

SOLs (Virginia Standards of Learning)

Columbine

September 11, 2001

The Beltway Sniper

The War in Iraq

The Winter of 2003

No Child Left Behind

"The Worm" (a computer virus that virtually shutdown our entire school system)

Hurricane Isabel

Lead in our water

"The Meltdown" (We lost all power to for an entire day.)

The front of the shirt read:

AND WE THRIVED!

J.E.B. Stuart High School

A Breakthrough High School

Without a doubt, of all the events, September 11, 2001 sticks out in my memory, just as it does for many Americans, most of whom will never forget what they were doing and where they were on that fateful day.

Ten years ago, our diverse, high-poverty school was basking in the light of being featured in highly complimentary article titled "Changing America" in the September, 2001 issue of National Geographic Magazine. The article was the culmination of a two-year long vetting by the Magazine's writers and photographers, who were given 24/7 access to the school and homes of our students.

The article, which was initially intended to focus on the difficulty that immigrant populations had assimilating into American culture, ended up being a celebration of the culture of our school as a focal point of our diverse community. If anything, and I mean anything, wasn't working in our school, the writers and photographers would have found it. It was as though we had gone through a two-year long audit of our school culture.

National Geographic Magazine, I later learned, is renowned in the field of journalism for their thoroughness. Yes, this was risky, but we came through with flying colors, and we all breathed a big sigh of relief when the issue was finally released. Although we didn't know it at the time, we wouldn't have long to enjoy our success.

Expecting the Unexpected

There are some things that happen in schools that simply cannot be anticipated. We conduct fire drills and bus evacuation drills. We plan for bomb threats and chemical and biological attacks, but sometimes things just happen and our work is put to a real-world test, not a multiple choice or fill in the blank test, but a real honest-to-goodness test. If and when the unexpected occur, and we, as school leaders, and our staff have done our jobs, we pass the test with flying colors. If not, things could get pretty ugly.

September 11, 2001 was just such a day. For our school, it was the mother of all tests. We never could have anticipated the tragic events of that day. It was one of those days that put everything we did in a school to the test. If we had done our homework in building strong relationships, and a warm, inviting school culture, and made enough deposits into our "emotional bank account" we would get through this unscathed. If we thought that National Geographic had been a test of our work, we hadn't seen anything yet. Working in America's "most diverse high school" on September 11, 2001 was a day that I will always remember.

Shock and Disbelief!

Our school resource officer burst into our weekly staff meeting and announced that we were under attack. We immediately turned on the television in time to see the second plane fly into one of the Twin Towers. Like everyone else, including the network reporters, we were confused and horrified. There were many false reports made that day. So, we had to try to sort rumors from reality. For example, our resource officer received reports that one of the nearby apartment buildings, in which many of our student lived, had been bombed and that vehicles were exploding on the highway near the school. Both turned out to be false. However, when I looked out of my window, I could see smoke billowing overhead. We didn't know it at the time, but that smoke was coming from the plane that had crashed into the Pentagon. In the following days, we learned that we lost several parents who worked there.

Compounding the fears of everyone was the fact that all the cell lines were jammed. It was impossible to reach anyone. We felt isolated and we learned early on that we were on our own.

We knew couldn't control what happened outside of the school, but we could impact what happened inside the school. We had to be calm and to maintain a sense of business-as-usual. Our first thoughts went out to our own families, but we had to keep our focus on our responsibility to protect and care for 1,500 other peoples' children.

We knew that everyone would be watching us and taking their cues from us. Despite the confusion and turmoil that we all felt on the inside, we knew that we had to be visible and put on a positive face. We had no choice. We had to hold it together!

As soon as I could, I went on to the PA system and made an announcement informing everyone of what we knew at the time. We immediately went into action circulating through the building to take the pulse of the teachers and students. Many of the classes had already turned on their televisions, and the students were fixated on the screens.

Our school was undergoing a major renovation and we had a number of construction workers in the building every day. As soon as the news of the attacks circulated, they could be seen literally running from the building.

After a while, it became apparent to us that we needed to limit prolonged viewing of TV news coverage, because it was too emotionally gut wrenching for our students to helplessly watch constant reruns of scenes of planes flying into buildings and people jumping to their deaths. So, early on we decided to limit the number of cable stations available to the classrooms and to have our librarian watch all the major networks, take notes, sort out truth from rumor, and provide me with periodic reports, which I delivered to the entire school.

Our teachers were doing a fantastic job of holding things together in the classrooms. Our concern focused on the times that the teachers were not with the students. We knew that class changes and lunch would be our critical times. If we could get through the lunch periods without a melt down, we would be home free. We were all present in the cafeteria and we recruited some teachers to be available to talk with students.

Everything was going smoothly until some of our parents, who had left their places of work, arrived. Some had come with the intention of taking their children home. Some even bypassed the main office and rushed into the cafeteria sobbing. I am proud to say that it was the students who calmed their parents. I distinctly remember the daughter of one local official telling her mother, who had come to pick her up and take her home, "Calm down. I don't want to go home. We are safe here! Everything is okay. I want to stay here with my friends." When I heard that statement, I knew things would be all right.

At the End of the Day

Eventually, the school day ended without incident. The construction workers left, and many parents departed their places of work to come to the school to pick up their kids. However, despite the fact that we all had our own families and children, our entire staff remained at the school. We knew that we were all that our kids had that day. If our students needed calming down and comforting, we were the one who would do it. As far as we knew, we were all they had.

9/11 was a big test for our school. We had to make a huge withdrawal from our "emotional bank account" that day. Fortunately for all involved, our teachers and staff had made so many deposits with so many kids that this withdrawal was hardly noticed. Our students trusted us, not because of who we were. They trusted us because of the relationships we built with them every day, day in and day out.

Our students knew that we cared about them, because we demonstrated it to them in so many ways ranging from a simple smile or holding a door to providing a clean, safe and inviting school environment where they felt wanted and, more importantly, where they wanted to be. In retrospect, we passed all the big tests our school faced because of all the little things we all did every day.

The Bottom Line

When the unexpected occurs, and it will, schools can't fake it. We have either earned trust or we haven't. Ultimately, we have either done the right thing, the right way, for the right reason or we haven't, and our students know it. Believe me! They know it and they will show it!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:36 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outside advice is not all bad

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

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

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

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

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

The minority achievement gap is not a fairy tale

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

Not as entertaining as the seven dwarfs but…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:14 PM | Permalink

"We should not be contemplating for whom “no excuses” schools are appropriate because “no excuses” schools are not appropriate for any children in a free society." - Paul Thomas, an associate professor of education at Furman University writing in The Answer Sheet

Under-resourced students, those who live in poverty, don't lack ability. They lack learning resources--language enriched home environment, involved parents. These students begin school significantly behind their middle class counterparts and they often never catch up. In order to make up their resource deficit they need more learning time, high levels of engagement, and smaller classes. Instead, these students are often expected to progress at the same rate in overcrowded classrooms in under-equipped schools.

Some believe that a KIPP-style education may be just what these students need to catch up. However, KIPP is not a silver bullet. Participation by students, parents, and teachers takes a special level of commitment and the approach has proven costly in terms of high turnover of students and teachers. Dropping out of middle school could be a wake-up call, or more likely, another disappointment.

If education is to be a means of raising young people from a lifetime of second-class citizenship and marginal employment, we may need to go to extraordinary, KIPP-like lengths. However, anyone who believes that the solution to improving education is to install a KIPP-like approach in every school is sadly mistaken. Some will opt-in. More will opt-out. Many will totally reject the idea.

KIPP students spend 68% more time in core academic classes than their contemporaries. They have a longer school day, a six-day school week, and they attend school for two weeks in the summer.

Our real challenge

We must keep in mind that our biggest education challenge is rooted in poverty. We can either cure poverty, which, in turn, will solve our education problems. Or, as what occurred in my own life, we can use education as a lever to improve the plight of the poor.

The truth

When we compare apples to apples in international education, we find our schools at comparable poverty levels are not only on par with the best in the world, our low-poverty schools are the best in the world. We know how to educate middle class students better than any other country. Our education challenge is identical to that of every other nation--educating our poorest, most under-resourced children. The refusal of the so-called experts to acknowledge this fact is distracting us from our true challenge--raising student performance in high-poverty schools that serve under-resourced students.

Poverty: An Excuse or a Reason?

Poverty is no excuse for the low-performance of many schools. Rather, poverty is a reason to provide the students who attend these schools with the additional resources they need to catch up to their middle class peers. If we don't provide those resources, who will? If we think that some magic bullet will make up for what these students don't receive in their homes or communities, we are sadly mistaken. This isn't about a handout. This is about a hand up. Raising the achievement of these students is about hard work, long hours, and a level playing field.

The Bottom Line

When it really comes down to it, if we would simply treat other peoples' children as though they were our own, many of our education problems would disappear.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:58 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Teaching is a tough, time consuming job.  I knew a high school English teacher who would periodically have to take a day of sick leave for the purpose of grading an overwhelming amount of student work.  With a pair of grocery bags crammed full of essays in hand, he would leave the building provisioned to spend the next day at home pouring over a huge pile of papers for hours.  This ritual would occur at least four times a year.

For most teachers at my former school, the concept of “contract” time was laughable.  Technically the workday began at 7:15 a.m. and ended at 2:45 p.m.  However, the faculty parking lot was always half full by 6:15 a.m. and anyone arriving after 7:00 was hard pressed to find a spot. Even when I left school as late as 5:00 p.m., dozens of cars were still there.  Suffice it to say, a high-school teaching schedule is a full-time job.  Anything that reduces the amount of time available to undertake that task robs individuals of the ability to perform at their maximum level.

With those factors in mind, Mel Riddile has raised a concern about the persistent practice of assigning teachers extra-duties.  He quotes the superintendent of a large school system who is trying to intervene on behalf of teachers who are being overwhelmed with an escalating series of tasks that detract from their primary job of educating.  This is a legitimate concern that continues to have a negative impact on the academic success of schools.

It is not a new problem

This unfortunate tug-of-war between administrators and teachers has been a perennial problem.  It has been the root cause of much of the tension that exists among the two groups.  From the teacher’s perspective there is a sense that the administrative team does not trust them to use non-class time appropriately.  In addition, many of the tasks assigned are viewed as not being part of their job description.  Finally, in this era of high accountability, most teachers feel there is not enough time to both teach effectively and perform other non-educational chores. 

One example of this conflict occurred when my former district expanded the school day from six to seven periods.   The additional class would afford students an opportunity to take four additional classes during their high school careers.  Though the school day was to be lengthened by about thirty minutes, the vast majority of teachers were comfortable with the longer work day.  They assumed they would continue to teach five classes, work with the same number of students for virtually the same amount of time.  The additional period would give the master schedule more flexibility and could offer an increased number of interesting and unique courses.  The expanded school day would be offset by a second planning period which would allow more opportunities for collaborative planning, preparation and grading. 

Unfortunately, the policy makers saw the new schedule differently.  In a move that clearly indicated that they felt teachers could not be trusted with this new “additional” time the “Individual Professional Responsibility” (IPR) was born.   The IPR was a requirement that teachers spend one of those “off” periods engaged in tasks assigned by the local administrative team.  These responsibilities included cafeteria duty, working in the attendance office and returning used library books to their proper place on the shelves.  For several years every teacher in the building would not only be required to perform such mundane tasks, they had to log in their time and give written explanations of precisely how they had spent their IPR time.  To the teachers the entire process conveyed a message that if unsupervised they would simply use non-class time to drink coffee and read the newspaper in lieu of academic pursuits.  Mercifully, thanks to the hard work of some enlightened principals this practice died out over time, although I am not sure it was ever officially terminated.  But the misguided perception that expanding a teacher’s job description has no impact on their classroom work still exists.

Replacing one bad idea with another

 While the IPR faded, there were plenty of other items to take up extra time.  Initiatives were being introduced that would reduce a teacher’s ability to focus on their students.  District programs to monitor student progress (e-Carte and Abacus) were mandated activities - even though they were inferior to the assessment tools already in use at the school.  The staff had a difficult choice.  They could either stop using approaches that had been proven effective or perform the same analysis twice to meet district requirements.  And, of course, all such programs came with lengthy training.  Poorly conceived staff development and unnecessary faculty meetings added to the problem.   What was most frustrating for the teachers was the total disconnect from the inordinate amount of time already being spent on important non-classroom activities such as parent conferences, faculty and department meetings, after school extra-curricular activities, evaluation discussions, recertification requirements, reviewing textbooks, etc.  There was scant recognition that there were already plenty of “extra” duties to fill in any excess time.

The next big thing

The most ominous current demand on teachers concerns remediation of students who are performing poorly on standardized tests.  Ironically, the same superintendent who wanted to ease the pressure on teachers has also requested that his state’s barrier exams be administered earlier in the year with the burden of remediating those who fail to be left to the teachers in an unspecified and unfunded manner.  It is a plan that sounds suspiciously like more extra duty.

It is time to reassess the components of a typical teacher workday.  From the view of both the teacher and administrative staffs the focus must be on finding ways to best utilize the time of every staff member to better serve the academic performance of the student body.  Finding ways to keep staff members occupied with duties that do not move toward that goal is unacceptable.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:58 PM | 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

It would seem logical that a local community college would be an excellent source to evaluate the quality of the education high school students were receiving.  Kristen Amundson, a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates and current communications manager for Education Sector, relayed some chilling data concerning the shortcomings of Virginia schools in a recent article in the Washington Post.  According to Ms. Amundson:

“At NVCC (Northern Virginia Community College) 2,913 of the 4,719 freshmen (62 percent) require remediation in one or more subjects. In other Virginia community colleges, as many as 80 percent of students arrive on campus needing at least one remedial class.”

Over the years Northern Virginia Community College has received national respect for the success of its students.  As a part of the Virginia Consortium students who earn grades of “A” or “B” in courses at the school can transfer those credits to any four-year state university.  Many talented individuals use two years at NVCC as a low-cost alternative for the first half of their college degree which they can complete at prestigious schools such as the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech. 

A disturbing imbalance

The fall schedule for NVCC reveals a major problem.  At the Alexandria campus there are 32 sections of Math I.  This is a non-college credit class that is designed as a remedial course that covers topics that should have been learned in high school.  Meanwhile Math 151, the freshman entry-level math course requiring a prerequisite of Algebra 2 and Geometry has a total of 11 sections.

The big lie

The state of Virginia thinks so highly of its Standards of Learning (SOL) end of course exams that the governor opted out of the Department of Education “Raise to the Top” competition because he believed the state’s standards far exceeded those of the federal government.  When one looks at the graduation requirements for the state, that contention seems valid.  To earn a diploma in the state students must pass three math courses at or above the level of Algebra 1.  In addition, they must pass at least one math SOL and in most cases two in order to “verify” those credits. 

On paper these requirements would appear to preclude any of the problems being encountered by NVCC.  The prerequisites for Math 151 are basically identical to those of a Virginia diploma.  And yet to meet the needs of the incoming freshmen, almost all of whom are products of Virginia high schools, there are three times as many remedial math courses as college-level.  The answer may be in how the state defines “mastery”. 

In May, 2011 in order to “pass” the Algebra 1 SOL exam a student must correctly answer 23 of 50 multiple-choice questions.  While on the surface that requirement might seem low (it equals to a 46% score) the reality is much worse.  On average random guessing on four-option multiple-choice questions will result in correct answers one-fourth of the time. Thus, a student can earn a passing grade by knowing the correct answer for 15 of the 50 questions (30%) and then by guessing on the remaining 35 questions net 8 or 9 more which will then total at least the required 23.  Though this level of knowledge could hardly be considered “mastery”, it does receive the label “passing”.  Even more disturbing is the fact that a few years ago that required pass number had been 26.   Is it really that surprising that a student with these credentials is struggling as a college freshman?

It is time to demand more

Sadly, the Governor is correct.  The state of Virginia does have comparatively high standards.  The problem is they are clearly not nearly high enough.  Instead students are receiving a potentially dangerous mixed message. They are pushed to go faster by taking Algebra 1 in middle school and abolishing all non-honors courses.  When too many begin to falter the requirements for defining “success” are lowered. The result is a transcript full of wonderful sounding classes and a plethora of graduates with woefully inadequate academic skills. 

It is time to stop looking for semantic shortcuts and begin the difficult process of demanding more.  The mere act of placing wallpaper over the cracks in our academic walls is not enough. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:25 AM | Permalink

Step 1:  Recognition that hiring is critical to academic performance.

The success of a school system correlates directly to the quality of the educational staff it employs.  Improving student achievement requires finding exceptional individuals who can fill those positions.  In a previous post I listed the eight priorities that were essential for hiring, improving and retaining the most talented educators.  This article is the first in a series that will detail the steps that need to be taken in order to ensure that all schools have outstanding personnel.

It is the implementation not the procedure

There is no question that every school district wants to secure the best talent possible.  The vast majority of systems have excellent hiring plans in place that are designed to attract the finest teachers available.  Unfortunately, that process can often become compromised as other concerns are given higher priority.  Some districts do not realize or understand the level of resolve necessary in terms of time and resources to hire the best and the brightest.

Rule 1:  Districts must recognize that the acquisition of new staff is critical.  Significant resources must be dedicated to recruiting top candidates.  These efforts must include input and participation by classroom teachers and school administrators. 

Recruit effectively at the district level

One of the biggest obstacles in acquiring new teachers in my school district was the practice of “early hires”.  Candidates in high-need areas would be interviewed by the personnel office and given guaranteed contracts.  The schools would then have to hire exclusively from that pool until it was exhausted.  In principle it was a sound idea—the district would recruit top-level individuals and pass them on to the schools.  Unfortunately, the expectations did not match the reality.  The selection process was highly erratic and I found myself interviewing people I would have never considered for a position.  Other department chairs would report being equally mystified by selections made in their subject areas.

Rule 2:  When making hiring decisions on early applicants, districts should approach the task in the same way that individual schools do when interviewing prospective candidates.  The process should include members of school staffs and solicit feedback each year on the effectiveness of the selections and suggestions for improvement.  

They are not widgets

Adding to the hiring problem is the misperception held by some that teaching staffs are a collection of interchangeable parts that can be added and subtracted with little effect.  The reality is very different.  A school’s staff is a complex team, which must be assembled while considering multiple variables.  Good teamwork is a critical component at numerous levels.  Departments must function efficiently as students move through the curriculum.  Likewise, there needs to be effective coordination and cooperation between different departments.  The teaching and administrative staffs must share similar aspirations for the academic program.  And of course the personnel of a school must be fine-tuned to best meet the specific needs of the student body.  I can recall two talented teachers, one in math and the other in science, who struggled for a year at my school. They transferred to new locations with very different student populations and had excellent careers. The art of building a successful staff can be that intricate.

Rule 3:  Creating an effective educational staff requires careful consideration of all aspects of a school’s educational environment. 

Their loss was our gain

I firmly believe that hiring teachers was my most important responsibility.  Each of those decisions had potentially long-term positive or negative impacts that could span years.  Since more than two dozen high schools in my district were choosing from a small pool of applicants, 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.  Here are two such instances that resulted from such indifference.

Great teachers can apply any time

The letter arrived in early February.  It presented the story of a very interesting individual.  He had grown up in the area before attending the University of Florida where he received a degree in mathematics.  After graduating he served as a marine, then a Peace Corps volunteer and finally as a teacher in a poor school district in Los Angeles. His request was simple—since he would be in town later in the month he would like to have an interview.  The letter was sent to all twenty-four high schools in the district.  Only one school agreed to his request.  He related during his interview that few schools responded and those that did told him “…they don’t worry about hiring until May or June so come back then.”  It was their loss.  In June when he accepted a position at our school he told me that since we took the time in the “off-season” to speak with him he was convinced we were a good fit for his teaching.  His tenure has passed the 15-year mark and his work has been stellar.

Rule 4:  Interviewing teachers is not a seasonal activity.  It cannot be done at the sole convenience of the interviewer.

Professionals deserve professional treatment

His goal was to begin a second career in high school education after retiring as a Colonel in the U.S. Army. During his interview, I quickly realized he would be an excellent fit for our department.  He had a military bearing but an easygoing manner, two ingredients that bode well for good classroom management.  He expressed an eagerness to learn how to improve at his craft and a willingness to teach any classes that were available.  Within a week an offer was made, but he told me that he had one more interview before he could make a decision.  Two days later he accepted our job.  The next time I saw him I asked what made the difference.  “Now don’t get me wrong.  I really liked your program and philosophy but my first choice was to teach at another school.  It is where my daughter attends, it is right near the house and it just seemed like the best place for me.  But when I went there for my interview the math chair was out of the building and no assistant principals were available. So I was asked a few questions by the head of the English department.  The next day they offered me a job. But when I thought about it, I knew that proximity to my house was not nearly enough to convince me to accept the other school’s offer. So, here I am.”  He became precisely the teacher I expected based on his interview.  He had a wonderful rapport with the students, was a positive influence in the department and a great team player.

Rule 5:  The hiring process can say as much about the school as it does about the candidate. 

The message is clear—the attitude demonstrated in acquiring staffing says as much about a school and a district as it does about the applicant.  An effective hiring process is multi-faceted, year round activity.   The overall plan must be focused, detailed and productive. Anything is less will not produce the desired results—the best teaching staff possible.

Next:  Creating an effective interview

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:00 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Take

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Take

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:39 AM | Permalink

In response to my recent post about fewer people interested in entering the teaching profession, a colleague sent me this message.

"Sad story - but true. One of my friends is a truly brilliant teacher leader who has been teaching over 25 years. Her daughter, equally brilliant, has wanted to be a teacher her entire life. She is a junior at a state university. A month ago she called her mom and told her she has changed her major because she is so upset with what is happening in the state."

I cannot remember a time in the last forty years when it was more difficult to be a teacher or a principal. Teachers and principals are literally under attack from the press, the feds, the state, and even their own district leaders resulting in schools becoming hostile work environments. As a result, fewer are going into teaching and fewer teachers are training to be principals just at a time when we need them the most.

The core of what we do happens in the classroom and teachers are the lifeblood of a school. According to recent report in the Los Angeles Times, one surefire way to undermine public schools is to cut off the supply of teachers:

1. Make Teaching Less Attractive

"It's kind of difficult to encourage people to become teachers when every time this time of year they hear about 20,000 pink slips going out."

"I think people are seeing it (teaching) as a less attractive career and a more stressful one."

"Potential teachers are discouraged by increasingly crowded classrooms and more emphasis than before on testing and scripted lessons."

2. Reduce Staffing = Fewer Teaching Positions

"Teacher layoffs and other education spending cuts are thinning more than the current ranks of California's classroom instructors. The number of people training to be teachers also is plummeting, and that trend is likely to continue." Fewer teaching positions mean fewer openings and larger class sizes. From experience I have learned that these larger class sizes will never be reduced.

3. Manufacture a teacher shortage

Education experts are warning of a shortage of new teachers in a few years as large numbers of baby boomers start to retire from teaching jobs and larger numbers of youngsters enter elementary school."

For example, according to a report by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, the number of first- and second-year teachers in California dropped in half between the 2007-08 and 2009-10 academic years.

4. Train fewer teachers

In California, the number of teaching credentials issued annually fell 29% during the last five years. The Cal State University system has seen a 50% decline in enrollment in teacher preparation programs over an eight-year period.

An Essential Question

I will conclude by asking an important question. Given the current climate in public education, would you encourage your child to become a teacher? First, you know that layoffs and budget cuts mean that there are fewer openings. For many new graduates that means incurring sizable debt to pay for an education that will most likely not lead to gainful employment. Second, class sizes will continue to grow. Third, resources will continue to diminish. Fourth, expectations will continue to rise and accountability will continue to increase. Fifth, the blaming will get worse because of unrealistically high expectations and fewer resources. Finally, even if they do find a job, new teachers will most likely receive a pink slip every year for the first three to five years they are teaching. That means every March or April, you, as a parent, will get a depressing call that your son or daughter may not have a job next year. Even though I believe that teaching is among the highest callings, I must admit that I would not advise either of my children to become teachers, not unless there were big changes, and I don't see any on the horizon. Unfortunately, I see that I see things getting worse before they get better.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:20 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Some positive responses

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

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

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

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

Making it relevant

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

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

Not everyone is convinced

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:52 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:24 AM | Permalink

By Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

I do not want to get into the politics of the situation.  If governors around the country feel compelled to battle unions, so be it.  I do not want to get into the specifics of balancing budgets.  I understand that states cannot print money so financial shortfalls mandate pain for everyone.   I do not want to talk about how much money other people should be paid.  That is an assessment employers should be making.  But when I am bombarded on a regular basis by a narrative blaming teacher avarice for much of the monetary ills of 2011, I have to speak out.

When stalking ineffective teachers is not enough

For the past few years, educational policy makers across the country have pointed to poor student achievement as a direct reflection of the inadequate instruction they are receiving.  Newspapers have publicly humiliated teachers by publishing their students’ test scores with the approval of the Secretary of Education and other school leaders.  Bill Gates has invested millions of his dollars to find better teacher evaluation techniques.  I, too, have endorsed the need to find ways to remove underperforming teachers from classrooms as quickly as possible.

But now, thanks to the budget wars in Wisconsin, what was previously a rational discussion between thoughtful adults has turned into something akin to an argument between children during recess.  The litany of complaints against teachers could be ignored as childish and silly if it were not so widespread and fraught with serious ramifications.  On national television, teaching has been described as a part-time job because they only work nine months of the year and teachers are home every day before 3 p.m.   Some talking heads have opined that teacher unions are capable of making demands that would be the envy of the Teamsters union.   One 24-hour cable news network vilified the Wisconsin teachers for causing $7.5 million in damages to the building they had occupied.  Two days later that figure was corrected to a still lamentable but significantly smaller amount of $350,000.   According to other pundits, the chaos wrought by educators is nearly biblical in nature.  Teacher pension plans are described as equivalent to corporate golden parachutes.  When it comes to teachers, simply having health insurance is considered an extravagance.   But possibly the most outrageous assertion of all is that teacher salaries are the primary state budget-busters for this fiscal year.    And to think, some teachers thought that assigning too much homework was the reason they were so often maligned.

A good time for some number crunching

Some of the “facts” being used to justify the attacks on teachers and their unions are inaccurate; others are either misrepresentations or worse.  A realistic discussion must begin with an analysis of the basics.  The salaries of teachers in Wisconsin are far from exorbitant.  Their average is approximately $51,000 per year.  That ranks 24th in the country and trails two nearby states - Minnesota and Michigan. 

The actual comparison to the private sector is an apples-to-oranges equation.  Trying to compare performance bonuses, stock options and buyout clauses to pensions is murky at best. Within this past week Borders Books as part of its bankruptcy agreement is requesting $8.3 million in bonuses for their employees.  The claim is that they are losing employees at a rate of five per week.  Incentive payments for the top executives would range from $4.7 million to $7.1 million each.  One of the company’s arguments is that many of these people have been with the company for less than a year.  Then there are retention bonuses to non-executives which average $37,000. Border’s attorney wrote, “The debtors have concluded that the critical employees are highly talented and that it would be difficult if not impossible to replace them given the debtor’s current circumstances.” When corporations fail, they use monetary incentives to retain their best personnel; when schools fail, the teaching staff is fired without regard to the level of talent.  And no one seems terribly concerned with the potential loss of outstanding teachers or the unlikelihood of finding equivalent replacements during the current fiscal crisis.   

Additionally, when comparing teachers to the private sector no one seems to be taking into account the educational level of a typical teaching staff.  Every teacher has at least a college diploma.  Normally about half have advanced degrees and many possess doctorates.  How does that compare to those other work forces? 

A mathematical reality check

It is time to talk about pensions.  I am receiving a very nice one.  It almost matches my salary when I retired.  This generous package is the result of paying 15% of my paycheck into three retirement plans—the state, the school district and Social Security.  Using the Wisconsin figures of $51,000 per year on average for my forty-year career I would have contributed $7500 per year for four decades.  That is a total of about $300,000.  Throw in the accrued interest and if I receive a very generous $60,000 in total retirement annually, one could argue that the first eight to ten years are on my own dime.  Could it be that teachers are not robbing the taxpayer?

A few other realities need to be discussed.  No one is going to become wealthy with an income of $51,000 a year.  The majority of the teachers I hired could not afford to live in the county where they taught.  The unmarried ones usually had roommates; those with children normally commuted more than thirty minutes to find affordable housing; some of my most talented teachers left the teaching profession for other, more lucrative careers.

Teaching is no more of a part time job than farming.  During the ten months classes were in session at my school the parking lot was full by 7:00 a.m. and the majority of those cars were still there at 4:00.  Evenings and weekends were often reserved for grading and lesson planning.  Summers were spent taking classes, refining classroom skills and networking with other teachers.  Some people had to find ways to augment their income by doing a variety of part time jobs.  Which leads to the question—how many bankers or lawyers must tutor or supervise recreation centers to help purchase a second car? 

The unkindest cut

Without doubt the most unfathomable part of this discussion is the manner in which the words “teachers” and “greedy” are used in the same sentence.  Teachers can be described in many ways but avarice or materialistic would hardly serve as a descriptor.  

There is, however, a context in which the word “greedy” can apply.  Over the years, I had the good fortune to work with more teachers than I can count who were absolutely convinced that their subject was the most important one in the building.  As a consequence they would grab for as much of their students’ time as they could to share with them their excitement about and knowledge of the curriculum.  To that end, they would engage in fierce battles with other teachers, coaches, parents and outside interests.  Some might describe that as greed; others refer to it as great teaching. 

These people do not deserve to be a political punching bag.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:46 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Not as simple as it looks

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

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

A long inflationary cycle

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

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

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

Parents join the fray

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

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

Some parents are more equal than others

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

An issue of fairness

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

A time and a place

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:37 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

A point of concern

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

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

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

Better evaluations are needed at every level

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

A vague, haphazard process

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

Wrong time, wrong place

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

Improving evaluations for everyone

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

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

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

And please stop the multiple-choice faculty meeting questionnaires!

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:24 PM | Permalink

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

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

Background

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

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

Demographics

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

Why pay teachers $125,000 a year?

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

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

How are TEP teachers different?

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

Student Engagement

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

Closing the Achievement Gap

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

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

Where does the money come from?

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

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

Teacher Evaluation

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

Expectations of Teachers

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

Students Say

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

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

Teachers on Teaching

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

Tenure: If you have a pulse

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

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

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

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

Can TEP be scaled up?

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

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

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

Criteria for Evaluating Teachers

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

Does More Mean Better?

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

Disappointing Results

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

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

It takes time!

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

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

My Thoughts

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:27 PM | Permalink

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

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

Student Achievement or Adult Convenience

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

A Testimonial

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

Research: Science says, "Let them sleep."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:13 AM | Permalink

When two highly respected teacher-leaders with over seventy years of combined teaching experience tell me something, I listen.

In my latest post, which was a follow up to Working Harder or Working Better, I quoted The Teacher Leader who stated, "Teaching successfully is easier and more satisfying but no less time consuming." I went on to argue that teachers and principals in high-performing schools are still working hard but they are getting a lot more done, and, even more importantly, they are feeling a lot better about their work. So, even if they are worker harder than their counterparts in other schools, it doesn't feel as though they are.

After reading the post, the teacher-leaders wrote me saying, "We both agree that the last paragraph of your latest post is "the essential philosophy that made you such an outstanding principal.  It is all about giving teachers the tools to succeed.  Keep spreading the gospel of Riddile!"

Trust me! If these seasoned pros say this paragraph is important, then school leaders should listen!

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:51 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 an article in the Washington Post, Jay Mathews lamented that his loss of electricity and the internet due to a snowstorm had reduced him to writing a column about television shows that featured an educational theme.  After an extensive review of “Glee” he then solicited readers to give him “top five” lists of their favorites.   Since that same storm had also robbed me of my electricity and internet, I have decided to take some time to respond to his request.

A vast wasteland

TV shows about high schools are a pretty dreary lot.   I accept the reality that I may be the only person on the planet who does not adore “Glee”.  Perhaps my evaluation of that show is skewed by the fact that while I had many exhilarating days during my forty-year teaching career I cannot recall a single one that would have come close to paralleling an episode of that show.  The protagonists and antagonists in a real school are far more nuanced and complicated than the broad characters portrayed on that Fox musical/drama.  The same critique could apply to virtually every other attempt by television to bring the academic world to the screen.   An honest look at the classroom simply does not translate into “must see” TV.  That shortcoming, however, does not mean that education has not been given a boost by one long-running series.

A surprising choice

As I read the column by Mr. Mathews one show sprang to mind.  For more than a decade CSI has been a strong, if possibly unintentional, advocate for the educational community.  For many years this drama featuring the work of the crime scene investigators of Las Vegas was the most popular show on television.  More importantly, it promotes the use of brain power in lieu of muscle.  From the perspective of the classroom teacher it has been an oasis of intellectual thought in a desert of mindless violence and over simplification. 

In a testosterone-laden era where Jack Bauer of “24” would shoot first and apologize later while “Hawaii Five-O” among others provides at least one massive explosion between each commercial break, the featured characters on CSI painstakingly solve every crime one piece of evidence at a time.   There is no glamour in their endeavors.  Their work is presented as slow and tedious.  On many occasions their initial efforts to solve the case fail and they have to start over.  Multiple attempts are the rule not the exception.  For the classroom teacher these efforts compare favorably to the work required to solve a complex math problem, perform a complicated science lab, studying a play by William Shakespeare or determining the underlying causes of World War II.   Based on conversations I had with my students it was clear that at the height of its popularity CSI impressed upon adolescents the power of logical thinking and diligence.  This outcome is no small feat and is a testament to the power of the media.

Life imitating fiction

In an effort to build on this message I actually used an episode of CSI as a portion of a lesson on parametric motion problems.  The premise of the show was that a gunshot randomly fired into the air was the cause of a homicide rather than from a suspect a few feet in front of the victim.  Using procedures similar to those utilized by the investigators portrayed on the show, the class demonstrated that the entry angle of the bullet was consistent with the downward trajectory of one fired virtually straight up and the depth of the wound equated to a distance of several city blocks.   By the time this class was completed there were more than a few converts to the power of math. 

I truly believe this level of success could not have been achieved without the influence of this show.  CSI  represents the educational process at it best.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 07:12 PM | Permalink

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

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

Student-Focused

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:30 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

College athletes serve as role models for many high school students.  Recent trends in NCAA eligibility and university attitudes raise concerns about the educational behaviors being modeled.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama received a standing ovation when he said there should be more prestige in winning the science fair than the super bowl.   Currently in this country that is clearly not the case.  His sentiment is particularly relevant for high school educators in light of recent trends in athletics at universities.   College athletes can be powerful role models for many high school students.  In the past when these collegians demonstrated on a regular basis that sports could be a path to a college degree such adulation was a positive force.   Unfortunately, the current environment on many college campuses is not sending the same message and has a potentially negative impact on education.

A reasonable solution

College students on athletic scholarships are often placed into difficult situations.  Nearly twelve months of the year, coaches demand inordinate amounts of their time.  During the season they can be away from campus for days or even weeks and unable to attend classes.   For the most talented there are constant distractions from the media and the student body.  Finally, despite their fame and exposure, these are young men and women who are still maturing and learning about themselves and their goals in life. 

For decades universities have addressed some of these obstacles by allowing student athletes five academic years to complete their four years of athletic eligibility.  The plan is simple.  These individuals could reduce the academic load by about 20% and take five years to complete the requirements for graduation.  Most would be “redshirted” their freshmen year giving them time to hone their academic skills and adjust to college life while practicing but not playing with their teams.   Based on all of the available data, that seems to have been a fair and viable solution.

A turn in the wrong direction

“Fair and viable” have been replaced with calculated and hypocritical.  A confluence of events during the past decade has made a mockery of the concept of the student/ athlete.  A rule by the National Basketball Association requiring high school athletes to wait until one year after twelfth grade  before entering the league has created a new phenomenon—“one and done”.   The National Football League dispensed with its rule that players could not enter the league until their collegiate classes would have graduated.  This change had predictable results. Large numbers of football players began leaving their campuses after three years and far short of meeting graduation requirements.   Adding to the negative environment are the current eligibility rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) which are less than rigorous.  To be eligible a student/athlete must be enrolled in 12 hours of class each semester.  However, they need only pass six hours (2 classes) to be eligible to play the next semester.   Long-term in order to maintain eligibility an athlete must pass 18 hours in an academic year which includes the fall, spring and summer sessions.  Abuses of the system are legendary.  Hall of Fame coach Bobby Knight told ESPN’s Mike and Mike in the Morning “College sports have become a cesspool…it is inexcusable that a player can attend no classes in the spring semester and still be eligible to play in the NCAA tournament.  It’s disgusting.”

For these athletes it is also a cruel game of “bait and switch.”  With visions of millions of dollars and unlimited fame beckoning how many people would choose meals in the school dining hall and term papers?  Unfortunately, the percentage of athletes who drop out of college and successfully become professionals is extremely low.  For the majority the ultimate outcome is the loss of their scholarship, eligibility and best opportunity for a productive future.

What can high school educators do?

Realistically, high school educational leaders have little input into this situation.  Their voices are quickly drowned out by the money and publicity of big-time college sports.  One potential action would be to drawn attention to the great examples that still exist in the sports world.  Michael Jordan and Shaquille O’Neal went back to school to earn their degrees after beginning their NBA careers.  Myron Rolle of Florida State postponed entering the NFL for a year to be a Rhodes Scholar.  These stories need to be made a point of emphasis for students.  Equally important, potential college athletes must be given an accurate and realistic analysis of the abuses and pitfalls they may encounter.

Regardless of the lack of potential influence, high school educators must also take every opportunity to remind universities that the current trends do not reflect well on them as institutions of higher learning and they do not serve the best interests of students in public education.  Being silent gives a bad practice a free pass and will only result in more abuses. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:22 PM | Permalink

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

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

1. Attempt too many initiatives.

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

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

3. Provide one-shot training.

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

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

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

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

What or How?

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

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

It's not just schools

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

Recommendations for School Leaders:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:10 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Master Teacher

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

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

A culture of denial

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

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

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

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

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

Improvement requires tough choices

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:54 PM | Permalink

New research may help school leaders with two important challenges that they face on a daily basis. First, in these tight budget times with fewer teachers, larger classes, and fewer resources, how do we improve student performance? How do we do more with less? What are some no-cost ways that we can improve our schools?

Second, given the complexity of course content, particularly in high schools, how do we enhance our skills as instructional leaders? How do we give meaningful feedback to teachers that will enhance their instruction even though we may have little or no background knowledge regarding the content of the course? For example, how do we give feedback to a world language teacher when we have never studied the language and cannot understand a single word they said in the lesson?

A recent study summarized in Science magazine and reported in a New York Times article titled To Really Learn, Quit Studying and Take a Test may be a key to unlocking some keys to the teaching and learning process. However, to find those gems, school leaders need to read between the lines.

Practicing Retrieval

When I read the abstract, my first thought was that this study would serve to support and defend the current obsession with standardized testing. The study concludes "practicing retrieval produces greater gains in meaningful learning than elaborative studying." In other words, the simple act of taking a test may improve learning better than any other studying technique including note taking and "concept mapping."

Furthermore, the researchers concluded that testing might enhance learning far beyond the recall of simple facts. They report "retrieval practice is an effective tool to promote conceptual learning about science."

The Times article went on to say, "The research, published online Thursday in the journal Science, found that students who read a passage, then took a test asking them to recall what they had read, retained about 50 percent more of the information a week later than students who used two other methods. One of those methods — repeatedly studying the material — is familiar to legions of students who cram before exams. The other — having students draw detailed diagrams documenting what they are learning — is prized by many teachers because it forces students to make connections among facts."

Counterintuitive?

Students who used intense review, also known as "cramming" for a test, as well as other popular methods to aid recall such as "concept mapping" or "mind-mapping" believed that they would have better recall of the content. On the other hand, those who took a test after reading a passage believed that they would remember less. In reality, the reverse was true. Ironically, those who took the test and believed that they had learned less actually learned significantly more than their hard studying counterparts.

The real proof of learning

The only evidence of learning is remembering. Notice that I didn't say "memorizing." Remembering is the key. In this case it is the practice of remembering (retrieval) that improves learning. Think about it, if a student cannot remember the essential concepts of the lesson, did the student really learn it?

“I think that learning is all about retrieving, all about reconstructing our knowledge,” said the lead author, Jeffrey Karpicke, an assistant professor of psychology at Purdue University. “I think that we’re tapping into something fundamental about how the mind works when we talk about retrieval.” The Times reported that "several cognitive scientists and education experts said the results were striking.

The researchers divided the students into four groups. One group simply read the content. The second group read and studied the text in four five-minute bursts. The third group used a widely popular strategy known as "concept mapping." The fourth group read the passage, wrote a free-form essay, reread the passage and then took another practice test.

A week later the students were re-assessed and "the students in the testing group did much better than the "concept mappers." They even did better when they were evaluated, not with a short-answer test, but with a test requiring them to draw a concept map from memory."

The experts were surprised by the results of the study. They cannot explain why retrieval testing helps. "The Purdue study supports findings of a recent spate of research showing learning benefits from testing, including benefits when students get questions wrong. But by comparing testing with other methods, the study goes further."

This is a Big Deal

Cognitive psychologist, Dan Willingham indicates “It really bumps it up a level of importance by contrasting it with concept mapping, which many educators think of as sort of the gold standard. Although “it’s not totally obvious that this is shovel-ready — put it in the classroom and it’s good to go — for educators this ought to be a big deal.”

It Throws Down the Gauntlet

Howard Gardner, an education professor at Harvard who advocates constructivism — the idea that children should discover their own approach to learning, emphasizing reasoning over memorization — said in an e-mail to the Times that the results “throw down the gauntlet to those progressive educators, myself included.” Educators who embrace seemingly more active approaches, like concept mapping,” he continued, “are challenged to devise outcome measures that can demonstrate the superiority of such constructivist approaches.”

More Testing?

After reading between the lines, my initial reactions to this article turned out to be unfounded. This study does not promote or denounce standardized testing. Nor does the study promote memorization or rote learning. This study simply supports quality classroom instruction, but how?

Look 4s for School Leaders

Closure and Learning - The focus of instruction is not what teacher teaches but what the students learn. The close of every lesson should focus on what the learner has learned not what the teacher has taught. The question is how does the teacher know that the students have learned and mastered the lesson unless there is some type of formative assessment--quiz, test, or activity.

Remembering - The only evidence of learning is remembering. When observing a lesson ask yourself how does the teacher know that students will remember what they just learned?

Checks for Understanding - Teachers should pause frequently during a lesson to check for understanding. How frequently? As a rule of thumb, teachers should check students understanding approximately every fifteen minutes, which approximates the attention span of the average adolescent. According to the Science study, one of the most effective checks for understanding is the quiz used as a formative assessment. Teachers can pause and ask students to write a summary or take a brief quiz on what they just learned. Immediately re-teaching a concept to a classmate may also be used to test practice retrieval.

Timing is critical. When it comes to recall, tomorrow is too late. Teachers need to check for student understanding before students leave the classroom each day.

Feedback - "Feedback is the breakfast of champions." Unless students practice recall (retrieval) and get immediate feedback they will not remember.

Defined Instructional Practices - Some students absolutely need a highly structured classroom room environment characterized by identifiable instructional practices, smaller units of instruction, more frequent assessments, coupled with frequent and immediate feedback. However, students who can function equally as well in low or highly structured classrooms are not penalized in any way by the use of structure. In other words, when in doubt, use a more structured approach.

Formative Assessments - How often should students be assessed? How frequently students are assessed or asked to practice retrieval depends on their familiarity with the content and the student's level of mastery. When students are introduced to new content or when they are struggling with a particular concept, they should be assessed more frequently. For example, the skills of proficient and advanced readers need only be assessed annually, while students reading at the basic level or below basic need to be assessed regularly. Frequent assessments mean more feedback. A quiz or summary essay at the close of a lesson will do more for student recall than extensive homework assignments.

Mapping - Instructional strategies like "concept mapping" are effective, but they work better if they are used as part of "practice retrieval." The act of creating a "concept map" in and of itself does not improve learning unless the student makes use of the map as a part of the "practice retrieval" process. Teachers should show students how to use the concept maps to review for a test and not assume that the students know how to do so.

What this study really says to school leaders

This study emphasizes the critical importance that school wide defined instructional practices, which include frequent checks for understanding, play in the learning process. When the teacher asks students to reflect on the lesson by practicing retrieval and the students receive immediate feedback, learning improves by as much as 50%.

Next: Checks for Understanding

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:50 AM | 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

What impact will the recent changes proposed in the definition of a "highly qualified" teacher, which would allow those in alternative teacher preparation programs to be labeled as "highly qualified," have on the ability of schools, particularly high-poverty, under-resourced schools, to significantly improve student performance? How do school leaders feel about Congress making it easier to become a teacher? Will this change improve the supply of teachers and make it easier for principals in some smaller, more rural areas to recruit and hire teachers?

A friend of mine once told me that I was wrong about school improvement. "All we need to do is hire great teachers and our problems are solved," he said. Since he had never worked in a school, I had to remind him of what happened in the real world. First, great teachers aren't born. Teachers become great through the combination of ability and years of preparation and a lot of hard work. Second, teaching is a profession. As is the case in any profession, teachers are expected to grow and improve throughout their careers. Third, many new teachers have had only a few weeks of actual classroom experience. They need a lot of support early in their careers. Finally, the principal plays an important role in both the short-term and long-term growth of a new teacher and whether that teacher will remain in the profession.

The best teach the neediest

Some object to the use of poor and minority schools as the training grounds for interns, because "alternate route trainees are disproportionately concentrated in low-income, high minority schools," which turn into "exclusive training grounds" for alternative route trainees, who "learn on poor peoples' children--and then move on."

Schools need more experienced, better trained, and more skilled teachers. This is particularly true in under-resourced, high-poverty schools that typically end up with the least experienced teachers and ultimately have the highest teacher and principal turnover.

Instead of saying that "anyone can teach," we need to treat teaching as a true profession. We need to shift the culture away from downgrading teaching, blaming teachers, and encouraging the firing of teachers.

Just as the Peace Corp was a part of an overall effort to improve the economies of third-world countries, programs like Teach for America (TFA) are a part of a solution to help struggling, high-poverty schools. They are short-term fixes to long-term problems. Lowering the requirements for teachers only serves to preserve the status quo.

In the long-run we need real systemic changes including:

• Elevating the status of the teaching profession
• Improving the quality of the applicant pool by encouraging top students to enter education
• Enhancing the quality of teacher preparation programs
• Improving professional development
• Improving teacher compensation
• Improving working conditions

Thanks, but no thanks!

From a principal's perspective, increasing the pool of prospective teachers solved a short-term problem. I could fill hard-to-fill vacancies. However, in the long-run that convenience turned into a curse. I learned the hard way that, even if the alternative route teachers stayed long enough, it took a lot more work to get those people up to speed. In the meantime, their students had much lower success rates.

Schools will never exceed the quality of the teachers. Lowering the requirements to teach might improve the quantity of teachers but the quality will suffer and so too will student performance.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:05 AM | Permalink

Recently, Jay Mathews of the Washington Post, in preparation for an article on the accuracy of school incident reports, asked me to respond to the following question: "Do security incident reports adequately describe the climate of a school?" Here is my complete response.

The answer is simple. No single data point can accurately depict student performance nor can incident reports describe the climate or culture of a school. Experience has taught me that the only way to truly assess the climate of a school is to spend time in the school and to use that time to observe as well as to gather data from multiple sources.

Ask the teachers!

What teachers say is a much better indicator of school climate than incident reports. I admit that I pay close attention to reports from teachers, which identify specific issues and incidents. Experience has taught me that teachers are generally reluctant to make such reports, but when they do, it is usually a sign of a much larger problem.

What affects consistency in reporting?

I have found discipline reports to often be inconsistent within a school and wildly inconsistent among a large number of schools across a district. Schools in which several administrators deal with student discipline could have a wide variation in how some incidents are reported.

The more serious the incident, the more consistent the reporting. Many schools and school systems have zero tolerance policies for drugs, weapons, and gang-related behaviors. The more clearly defined the behaviors, the more consistent the reporting within a school.

NCLB has dramatically improved the consistency of reporting. States like Virginia developed reporting systems that met federal requirements and districts aligned their reporting to match state systems.

Another factor that greatly impacts the consistency of reporting relates to the police presence in a school. In schools with a full-time school resource officer, the reporting will be more consistent.

Pressure to avoid negative labels

We know that schools are under tremendous pressure to raise test scores. However, that pressure pales in comparison to the need avoid the stigma of being labeled a "persistently dangerous" school. Parents will absolutely refuse to send their child to a dangerous school and school leaders know it.

School Discipline and Grey Areas

Like most school issues, there are a number of grey areas, and that is particularly true when reporting student behavior. For example, one student brings a knife to school to protect him, but since the blade is shorter than that specified in the code, the knife is not considered a weapon. Another student goes on a camping trip and forgets that he left his knife in his backpack. However, because the knife is of a specified length, it is considered a weapon.

Generally speaking, the tendency is to downplay incidents. In fact , I cannot imagine a case in which a school would want to overstate the number of serious incidents. Truth be told, some principals pressure school resource officers to downgrade some incidents. Likewise, some police officers don't want to deal with juveniles and the juvenile court system and they want to downgrade incidents.

Data can be misleading

In the short run, a school can look better when less is done. Principals can reduce the number of incidence by not showing up or by simply doing nothing. Schools that take a less aggressive stand could look better on paper than they actually are in real life. On the other hand, schools that actively and consistently address discipline issues could, in the short run, have a high number of incidents. In that case, the school could look worse on paper than it actually is.

The Bottom Line

School culture is a product of the values, beliefs, mindsets, and behaviors of the entire school community. Just as no school and no student can or should be judged on the basis of a single data point, neither can the number of incidents portray the culture or climate of a school. When it comes to reporting student behavior, I would trust first-hand experience and the word of the teachers and students rather than a state or district report that simply lists the number of incidents.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:01 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leveling the playing field

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

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

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

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

Mathematically Speaking

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

Additional observations from PISA results:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In difficult economic times the poorest and under-resourced schools and students suffer the most. A new report on workforce employment tells us what many high school teachers and principals already know--there are few jobs for our students.

The report points out that the number of people 55 and older holding jobs is on track to hit a record 28 million in 2010 while young people increasingly are squeezed out of the labor market, a USA TODAY analysis finds. The portion of people ages 16-24 in the labor market is at the lowest level since the government began keeping track in 1948, falling from 66% in 2000 to 55% this year. There are 17 million in that age group who are employed, the fewest since 1971 when the population was much smaller.

Impact on Schools

CTE and work-study programs have been struggling to find employment opportunities for students. Many of our students need to work to help support their families. The lack of jobs puts more pressure on the students and their families, which makes this time of the year even more challenging for teachers, counselors, and school leaders.

The Bottom Line

In difficult times our neediest students need us the most. They rely on us to provide a clean, safe, orderly, and inviting school environment. They count on us to do whatever it takes.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:43 AM | Permalink

Just before I went on stage to deliver a keynote speech on dropout prevention before over a thousand people, my host grabbed my arm and said, "See that large man in the front row? He controls the finances in the state legislature and he is very interested in what you have to say." I looked at him and said, "Thanks for not putting any pressure on me."

I began my speech by saying "Our school operated on a simple premise. Treat other peoples' children the way that you would want your own child treated. If every school believed that, we wouldn't be here today talking about dropout prevention." At that, the man in the front row stood up and began to applaud. I breathed a deep sigh of relief.

I always believed that many of our challenges in education could be corrected if we would simply treat other peoples' children as though they were our own. I would want my child in a small classroom with an excellent teacher. I would want my child to receive personal attention from the teacher. I would want my child to receive additional assistance should she fall behind. I would want my child to have an individual learning plan customized to her unique talents and interests. Our school accomplished many things for many students because we walked the talk.

Unfortunately, too many influential people refuse to walk their talk. They are locked into a do as I say not as I do mode. They talk about public education and the benefits of diversity and send their own children to elite private schools. They tell us that large class sizes and teacher pay don't impact student performance. According to Bruce Baker in School Finance 101 "private independent schools in particular, systematically outspend public schools in the same labor market by about 2/1" and their main point of differentiation is, you guessed it, small class sizes. In other words, small classes and high teacher pay for my child, large classes and low teacher pay for your child.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:25 AM | 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)

Here's a news flash. The National Assessment Governing Board has convened an ad hoc committee to study the motivation of 12th graders to take the NAEP assessments. I can save NAGB a lot of time and money. Ask any high school teacher or principal and they will tell you. If you are testing 12th graders, and the tests don't matter, forget it. It is a waste of time and money. However, like most issues in education today, no one bothers to ask anyone who works or has worked in a school. After all, what do they know?

Wake Up People

Kids across the country are "christmas-treeing" tests, not because they are not motivated, but because they are smart. This is not a protest against tests and testing. Students know what tests matters and what tests don't.

As I have reported in the past, teachers and principals across the country are being victimized by state testing programs that holds teachers and schools accountable but not students. The fate of public education in those states rests on the good will of the students. If students feel like trying, they do. If they don't feel like trying, they simply "Christmas-tree" the test by drawing patterns on the answer sheets.

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 accountable 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.

Been NAEPed?

Three years ago, our school was "chosen" to participate in NAEP testing. A team for the state DOE descended on us and took complete control of the selection of students as well as the testing logistics and conditions. Our seniors were "randomly" selected to participate. The DOE team decided that testing would take place in the gym, a location that no one that was serious about the test would have chosen. The DOE team not me, the principal, delivered the charge to the students. I have no idea how our kids did, but I was certain that I didn't want my job to hang on the results.

No Feedback, No Effort

"Feedback is the breakfast of champions." Students know that neither they nor anyone else will ever see the results of their NAEP test. They know that their school will not be held accountable. They know that the results will not reflect on their teachers.

Don't Count = Don't Care

Diane Ravitch understands when she writes, "The students know that the tests don't count, that there are no individual scores, that no one will ever know if they did well or poorly, and they are not motivated to do their best. 

The public does not realize that NAEP is a sampling test, and it is not given to every student. They also don't realize that no student takes the entire test, only a portion of it. The seniors may not know that they are part of a national sample, but they know that this test will not affect their grades, their likelihood of graduating, or their plans after high school."

Others wrote comments supporting Ravitch's position.

Senioritis

"As a recently retired high school principal, I can attest to the fact that 12th graders, infected with "senioritis," do not care about the NAEP tests. They have mentally moved on from high school. In Arizona, until seniors had to pass our state assessment tests in order to get a diploma, they did not care about it either. If we are to use the NAEP tests, we will have to come up with something that is in the students' self-interest."

Fed Up With "Testing Nonsense"

"Diane is right that these particular tests are a waste of money. My high school senior and her friends are fed up with all the testing nonsense they've endured for years."

Sick of being guinea pigs

"Way back in 1983, as a highly motivated, successful high school senior at a competitive science/math boarding school, I was given the same standardized test several times over the year. By the last time we took it, my friends and I were deliberately choosing wrong answers because we were sick of being guinea pigs."

Christmas-Treeing Defined

Diane Ravitch gets the last word. "NAEP tests don't matter. And seniors know it. They doodle on their test papers, or they select answers with a pattern, like all B, or all C, or ABCD/ABCD. Or they leave questions blank, without even bothering to make a guess. The government should stop wasting money on this test in this grade, and the usual critics should turn their fire elsewhere."

The Bottom Line

If you work in a high school in a state that has no accountability for students, you will have to do everything possible to earn the good will of the students. Hopefully, you and the staff have a big "emotional bank account" from which to draw.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:07 PM | Permalink

Arne Duncan was right when he said to me, "we need to create a culture in which our best teachers and principals want to work with our neediest students."  The problem is that what we are doing is resulting in the exact opposite.

Not only are the best teachers and principals not working in our neediest schools, but the threats of penalties, sanctions and firings are driving them away in droves. Today, working in a high-needs school is more likely to be a career-killing experience.

However, the real damage that high-stakes accountability is having on public education may not be in what happens to those already in education, but in the fact that many will now never enter teaching.

Take special note of what 20-year veteran, Victoria Robinson, wrote in the Chicago Tribune.

"As an undergraduate, many of my non-teaching peers devalued my decision to pursue a teaching degree."

"Along with signing my first contract, I took a vow of poverty."

"The most hurtful public message was that I was to blame for just about every academic, social, economic and political problem in America. American students' test scores are inferior to students in other countries — blame the teachers. American kids are disrespectful — blame the teachers. The American work ethic is slacking — blame the teachers. And if my student doesn't earn all A's, it must be the teacher's fault. I am just a teacher."

"I am just a teacher in a society where nearly 30 percent of the children eat their only hot meal of the day at school. I am just a teacher in a country where out of more than 49 million public school students, 4.5 million have special needs; more than 1 million are abused, of which half are victims of neglect; and tens of thousands of families experience homelessness each night."

The Bottom Line

One leading expert once told me, "All we need to do to improve schools is hire great teachers." While it has never been easy to attract the best and brightest to the teaching profession, the current climate of "reform" is making that virtually impossible.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:18 AM | Permalink

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Winston Churchill may have defined it best.  “Success,” according to the former British Prime Minister, “is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.”  As his country’s leader in the midst of a world-wide conflict, it is clear that he understood the critical importance of realistic appraisals.  Unfortunately, the prevailing philosophy in the upper echelons of the educational hierarchy does not share that view.  In schools throughout the country there are escalating efforts to avoid giving failing grades to under-performing students.  The problem with these approaches is that most are more focused on eliminating the appearance of the letter “F” on report cards than on finding approaches to improve actual student performance.  Such grading is not a zero sum game.  Barring teachers from giving valid feedback to failing students does not automatically result in a proportional gain in student knowledge acquisition.  To the contrary there is growing evidence that such manipulations are having the opposite effect.  Jay Mathews in the Washington Post explained how Montgomery County (MD) has found yet another method to avoid giving students an accurate assessment of their poor classroom performance. 

Framing the argument

Long considered one of the elite school systems in the country, Montgomery County Public Schools has legitimate reason to be concerned about the performance of their high school students.  According to Mathews, “The SAT and Advanced Placement results, put out so proudly by the Montgomery County school system, suggest that it is among the best districts in the country, but the county has seen no significant increase in math or reading achievement for 17-year-olds in 30 years.”

Dan Stephens, a math teacher in the district for twenty years, has a relatively simple explanation for the cause of that stagnation.  He believes that too many of his students are convinced that regardless of what they do in the classroom, they will still graduate. One of the primary reasons for this attitude according to Stephens is a final exam written and mandated by the county.  The tests are given in every core subject and are allowed to constitute as much as 25% of a student’s final grade.  The problem revolves around a decision that MCPS like many other groups had made concerning the percentage value of a failing grade.   No matter how poorly students may perform on these tests the lowest allowable score is 50%.  "The majority of my pre-calculus students”, says Stephens, “have never passed one of these exams in either Algebra 1, geometry or Algebra 2, all pre-calculus prerequisites. Nevertheless, they proceeded to the next level. . . . Students are well aware that failure, even pathetic failure, will not prevent them from going on to the next level. Most of my students have failed multiple final exams in other subjects as well, but they still earned credit for those classes.”

Even the most ardent supporters of the “50% conversion rule” have to accept the reality of this potential negative outcome.  However, regardless of any damage to student motivation, a growing number of schools are gravitating toward this approach as the best avenue to student success.

The problem is in the numbers

The main impetus for arbitrarily raising poor grades is the misguided belief that low failing scores can be overly punitive.  At first glance this assumption can appear to have validity.  Using a typical grading scale of 90-100 as A, 80-89 for B, 70-79 C, 60-69 D and below 60 as an F, it would appear that a score of 22% would unfairly skew the overall average.  Unquestionably a 22% would have considerably more negative impact than a 50%.  The follow-up argument makes some superficial sense.  If the other four grades have a ten-point range, why should the “F” have one of sixty?  Does that give a low “F” too much impact? 

Even if one accepts this premise there is still a nagging issue of fairness. One student works diligently to prepare for a test and earns a 58%.  Another who does little or nothing receives a well deserved grade of 22%.  After that grade is changed to 50%, is this a fair outcome for the dedicated student?  But this argument is usually trumped when someone trots out the traditional closing equation—three 100s (A) and one zero (F) average out to a 75 (C).  While this argument often ends the discussion it is not mathematically persuasive. 

It is all in the paradigm

 To understand the flaw in the “50% solution” it is necessary to re-evaluate how the grading scale is interpreted.  When assessing a student’s score on an assignment there are two potential outcomes.  A result of 60-100 is passing while one from 0-59 is failing.  When comparing these two potential options the disparity in size has diminished considerably.  The real difference is that in our traditional grading system we have designated four distinct grades for success and only one for failure.  To make the two categories parallel different levels of failure would have to be introduced—G for 40-49, H 30-39, etc.   While such a change would be of little actual value it does bring into perspective the overriding problem with ignoring poor grades.

What happens if passing scores were handled in a manner similar to failing ones?  Any grade below 90 (ten points below the highest possible score) would be converted to 90.  Thus a 92% would be unchanged but scores of 82%, 76% or 65% would be recast as 90.  The argument in favor of this fictitious approach would be “It is not fair to saddle a student with a 62%—that would make it almost impossible to earn an A.”  Clearly such a plan would be both unfair and unacceptable.  No one would argue that a student who receives a grade of 65% should be given equal status to one who worked to earn an 87%.  And yet we are implementing programs that are using precisely the same philosophy in the failure area of the grading scale. 

Unfortunately these arguments will have little impact on educational decision-makers.  They will continue with various plans such as requiring the use of a 0-4 scale for averaging grades (A=4, C=2, F=0) and the “50% conversion”.  The reason these policies will continue is because they are designed to cosmetically make student performance appear to be better.  Such superficial solutions will only result in thirty more years of negligible improvement.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

"The claim that experience doesn’t matter is flat-out wrong."--Matthew Di Carlo

I don't know about you, but I want an experienced airline pilot in command when I fly home in a few days. I also want an experienced physician and an experienced dentist. In fact, I can't think of any set of circumstance in which a lack of experience would be an advantage. When it came to my children's teachers, whether it was in elementary, middle, or high school, and even college, I wanted an experienced, skilled teacher. Come to think of it, I have never heard a teacher claim that he or she was a better teacher in year one than in year five.

Enter the omniscient Mr. Bill Gates, who would never dare hire inexperienced software engineers at Mircrosoft or have his child in school with commoners and inexperienced teachers, but who would try to convince us average citizens that, not only doesn't experience in teaching matter, but it is a liability.

Next, enter Secretary Duncan who insists that educators don't need education and who, "many times previously had backed eliminating experience as a criterion for judging and compensating teachers."

I don't ever recall so-called experts in any field claim that additional training was unnecessary. I have always found it ironic that the first cuts to education budgets are always professional education. What does that say about how we value education?

Think about it, budget cuts result in fewer teachers teaching more students. That means that, just to maintain the status quo, we need to increase teacher productivity. So, what do we do? Instead of increasing training to enhance the skills of teachers and principals, we tie their hands behind their backs by cutting professional development and then we motivate them by threatening to fire them if test scores don't improve.

Research Doesn't Matter?

Ironically the same folks--Gates and Duncan--who insist that others adhere to research-based practices don't read the research unless the research supports their preconceived notions of what needs to be done? Remember the last silver bullet, small schools? How did that go?

What does the research really say? Special thanks to Matthew Di Carlo who provides practitioners with an excellent synopsis of research that consistently demonstrates that experience matters a great deal in the early years on the job (also see here, here, here and here).  Here are some of the highlights:

Returns to experience are strongest in the first year of teaching.

After the first year, the rate of improvement starts to level off quickly – usually stagnating within about 4-5 years after which there is a leveling off.

Beyond the fifth year, most teachers tend to remain relatively stable in terms of their effects on student test scores (though a very large proportion leaves the profession before that point).

Context Matters

The relationship between experience and student performance is more consistent among elementary school teachers (especially compared with those in high schools).

"The effect of experience on teacher productivity may also be mediated by the quality of their peers in the same school – i.e., that novice teachers with more effective peers in the same school do better."

There is strong evidence that experience matters less – or less consistently – in poorer schools (also see here), which could be attributed to increased turnover in under-resourced schools and more student mobility.

Subjects Matter

Math teachers seem to improve more quickly (and consistently) than reading teachers.

Teachers who remain in the same grade for multiple years also improve more quickly.

"Experience is actually one of the very few observable teacher characteristics that is consistently correlated with achievement, and its effect is among the strongest, especially for some sub-groups, such as elementary school and math teachers.

Even those who think the magnitude of these returns is not commensurate with the role of experience in education policy cannot dispute that it is still a proven signal of quality, at least during the early years of teachers’ careers. And it is virtually certain that teachers also improve in other ways that don’t show up in their students’ test scores."

The Bottom Line

Experience does matter in teaching and in leading schools. We need to invest more in education--the education of our teachers and principals--so that we can increase their individual and collective capacity to raise the achievement of each and every student. Let's do for other peoples' children what we would want done for our own children. Let's give them the most experienced and skilled teachers and principals possible.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:36 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

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

Bring on the talking heads

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

Let me count the ways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New York Times reports that schools across the country are going to great lengths to ensure that every student is included in the yearbook. Apparently, the days when only the "most popular" students dominated the yearbook are gone. "

"Students who saw star athletes and bench warmers alike rewarded with thanks-for-playing trophies are now experiencing new efforts to protect their self-esteem: An editor has been charged with tracking how often all 1,400 students appear in the 325-page yearbook. The goal is for every student to appear twice, in candid photos or feature stories, regardless of whether he or she is the senior class president, the yearbook editor’s best friend or the student who comes late and leaves early."

"The changing yearbook is a result of a decades-old effort to foster a kinder, gentler culture through measures like smaller schools, character-building and peer counseling. “We want every student to be known and valued in a school.” Research has shown that students are less likely to drop out when they feel connected to their school."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:03 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                                Central, SC 29630

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:28 PM | Permalink

I have to admit I am not sure where to begin.  Like most math teachers, I have spent a good deal of my adult life defending the relevance of my subject to students, parents and other educators.  I have observed the popular culture ridicule math in advertising; television shows and political speeches. How many times have you heard someone say, “Well of course I can’t do that, I was never very good at math.”  But I never fathomed that I would have to defend the study of the subject to a college math professor. 

It actually took me three readings of a recent Washington Post op-ed to get a handle on what the author was trying to say.  The first reading left me confused—is this perhaps a “Modest Proposal” for math? After the second reading, I became slack-jawed in stunned disbelief.  On the third run through I reached critical mass—these were clearly the most amazing assortment of negative statements ever attributed to a mathematician   The object of this extended reading session was the op-ed in the Washington Post by University of Illinois at Chicago Math Professor G.V. Ramanathan. His primary position was to question whether there was any value for studying mathematics.  The argument begins by comparing the process of learning math to superficial improvements to one’s appearance.   

“…the marketing of math has become similar to the marketing of creams to whiten teeth, gels to grow hair and regimens to build a beautiful body.”

Professor Ramanathan adds:

“A lot of effort and money has been spent to make mathematics seem essential to everybody's daily life. There are even calculus textbooks showing how to calculate -- I am not making this up and in fact I taught from such a book -- the rate at which the fluid level in a martini glass will go down, assuming, of course, that one sips differentiably (sic). Elementary math books have to be stuffed with such contrived applications; otherwise they won't be published.”

Technically, I do agree with this particular point. The use of fluid level in a martini glass does seem a bit contrived.  But what is the harm in trying to make an abstract discipline like mathematics more relevant to students using at least a million other, more appropriate, examples to illustrate the importance of the subject.  Professor Ramanathan continues his questionable argument with the following:

“Unlike literature, history, politics and music, math has little relevance to everyday life.  ...Most adults have no contact with math at work, nor do they curl up with an algebra book for relaxation.”

These statements cry out for a response.

Ignorance is not really bliss

I have not read anything by Shakespeare in decades.  I did, however, learn much about human nature through the study of his work.  These are lessons I still use in my life.  I cannot recite the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence.  Would I be a better citizen if I had never studied them?  I cannot recall ever using the principles of photosynthesis in my daily conversations.  But I do believe I am enhanced by possessing an understanding of the interrelationship between myself and the plant world.  Is math so much different than these subjects?

What is the value of a well-informed decision?

Professor Ramanathan’s primary contention is that there is little use for math for most people. 

“How much math do you really need in everyday life? Ask yourself that -- and also the next 10 people you meet, say, your plumber, your lawyer, your grocer, your mechanic, your physician or even a math teacher.”

I beg to differ.  First of all, every one of those occupations mentioned are constantly using math whether it is to correlate measurements, determine the proper equipment, adjust dosage, or establish prices.  More importantly mathematics is one of the most powerful tools anyone can wield when attempting to understand and interpret information.  I could go on for fifteen or more pages condemning all of the professor’s contentions.  I could bludgeon his arguments using numerous illustrations of his folly.  But in lieu of all that verbiage, I will summarize my arguments using one example of the power of mathematics as a tool for understanding the world.

A few weeks ago Brian Williams on the NBC Nightly News reported on a recent study of breast cancer and the use of hormone replacement in women.  The numbers were ominous.  After extensive research it was determined that a woman’s chances of having breast cancer would increase by 25% if she was on hormone therapy.  A 25% increase in just about anything is huge.  If your mortgage goes up by that much, foreclosure will soon follow.  Similar growth in dropout rates, unemployment, violent crime, tuition, or auto accidents would be an automatic cause for alarm.  But is an increase of 25% in the potential for a woman contracting breast cancer cause for the same degree of apprehension?  Let’s do the math.

With a little research it was determined that the number of women in the general population who develop breast cancer is 0.4%.  That number increases to 0.5% for those who use hormone replacement which is an increase of 25%.  (Divide the increase of 0.1 by 0.4.) Four-tenths of a percent translates into four women out of every 1000.  Five-tenths of a percent means that the number stricken with the disease will grow to five.  Consequently, as the direct result of hormone replacement, the increased chance of having breast cancer is one in a thousand.  Does this interpretation of the information make the correct decision obvious or easier?  Absolutely not, but it does give an enhanced perspective to the reality of the situation.   

This analysis did not take an understanding of calculus, differential equations or advanced statistics.  It simply took a solid grounding in basic mathematics.  The same process could be used to evaluate airline tickets (free baggage vs. fees), home loans, or a thousand other life decisions. 

So please, Professor Ramanathan explain to me one more time why math literacy should not be a major goal of education.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

A Chilling Moment

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

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

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

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

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

An infection that spreads throughout a building

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

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

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

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

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

A needed dialogue

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent article in the Washington Post, Nick Anderson reported on a study that indicated merit pay for teachers did not result in better student test scores.  One of the conclusions presented by Mr. Anderson was:

“Offering teachers incentives of up to $15,000 to improve student test scores produced no discernible difference in academic performance, according to a study released Tuesday, a result likely to reshape the debate about merit pay programs sprouting in D.C. schools and many others nationwide.”

These results, the first major study of the link between bonuses and improving student test scores, brought reactions ranging from disbelief to disillusionment. According to Vanderbilt Education Professor Matthew Springer who led the study "Pay reform is often thought to be a magic bullet. That doesn't appear to be the case here. We need to develop more thoughtful and comprehensive ways of thinking about compensation. But at the same time, we're not even sure whether incentive pay is an effective strategy for improving the system itself.”

As someone who was awarded multiple merit pay bonuses over the course of my career I can answer Dr. Springer’s concern—money will not provide an immediate boost to student test scores.

It may buy happiness but not better teaching

Let me be very clear about my position on merit pay—I think it is a critical and essential part of any successful educational program.  What I do not accept is the belief that such extra funds will make a teacher better.  The amount of effort and skill excellent teachers bring to their classroom is never predicated on the amount of money in their paychecks.  Teachers are a unique breed.  For the best of them merit pay is good; recognition by their colleagues as “skillful” is better; but a “thank you” correspondence from a former student is priceless.  For great educators no student is viewed in terms of dollar signs.  Every student is an individual with a name and a story.   Success is measured by making a difference in a life, not in a bank account.

Confessions of a merit pay teacher

When my district created a program for teachers to earn merit pay I immediately applied for it.  As I saw it, there was virtually no downside.  I was more than willing to fill out the necessary paperwork.  Without hesitation I compiled the required list of “goals and objectives”.  The majority of the time the required “itinerary” of the day’s lesson was dutifully posted even if it was often not completely accurate and had certainly never been a part of my previous classroom procedures.  And when it was time for a pre-arranged observation I always suggested a topic I knew would actively engage my students.  Yes, the lure of several thousand dollars would inspire me to add a few pieces of window dressing to my teaching.  But here is what did not change—the lesson that was observed during my second period Algebra 2 class was taught with exactly the same intensity, content and techniques in the unobserved fourth period Algebra 2 class an hour later.  That lesson was the same the year before there was merit pay and would continue to be unchanged in the future.  Why?  Because like every professional teacher I did not possess skills, techniques or special tricks that I was holding back until there was more money on the table.  The sad fact is that the people who think extra pay will make the best teachers perform better simply do not understand or appreciate the qualities that define those teachers.

Not today but definitely tomorrow

While I do not believe extra money equates into better teaching, I do believe it will result in a better teaching staff.  One of the greatest frustrations in education is the system which determines pay exclusively by years of service and educational level.  The lack of any component that measures the actual performance of the individual is one of the biggest morale killers in the profession.  An effective merit pay system based on the intelligent use of student test scores among other factors is an excellent method of eliminating this problem. To build the best staff possible these are the educators who need to be retained by school districts.  There is little doubt that a teacher who is recognized both with status and money is far more likely to stay in the profession.  Likewise, those who are not given such rewards are more likely to depart.  Over time, these two dynamics—retaining the best, removing the worst— will result in vastly improved teaching staffs.  Given enough time, those positive changes will ultimately bring the improvement to education envisioned by the supporters of merit pay.  And of course, the primary beneficiaries of these changes will be the students. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rubber Room

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

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

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

If they have what it takes

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

You are a principal?

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

We can’t wait for Superman

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:51 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

Understanding the teacher’s view

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

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

Focusing on the individual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Culture Shift

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

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

The Role of the State

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

The Role of Law Enforcement

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

The Role of the Courts

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

The Role of the District

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

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

Next: The Role of the School in Improving Student Attendance

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:30 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

What attributes made him the most effective district supervisor?

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:16 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

The Right Incentives

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:40 PM | Permalink

Thirty-one year old, Bobby Cramer, won his big league debut by pitching the Oakland Athletics over the Kansas City Royals 3-1. The ESPN SportsCenter hosts jumped all over this story because Cramer is a former math teacher. They showed math equations of two of his pitches using distance and time to calculate the speed of the pitch, which was an effective real-world math application.

Sadly, the anchors managed to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory. They simply could not leave well enough alone. Even though well-intentioned, they managed to completely undo the good they were doing for math teachers around the country.

In between their calculations the SportsCenter anchors made comments like “I was in remedial math” implying that theses simple equations were above their ability. One implied that it was a good thing that he had good writing skills, because high-level math like that would have kept him from graduating from college.

Several years ago, I was appearing on a PBS program with then Assistant Secretary of Education, Henry L. Johnson. The program was focused on how to encourage more students to take more math and science courses. At the wrap-up, the moderator asked me if I could make one recommendation to parents what would it be? I looked at the camera and said, “Never tell your child that you were good or bad at math and science! Anyone can be good at math and science if they are willing to work hard enough. Parents ruin their child’s math and science self-esteem by too often telling them that they were bad at math.”

According to Carol Dweck’s must read book for school leaders and parents, Mindset, what I had learned from years of practice, as a school leader, was spot on. Telling students that they are good or bad at a particular subject or skill is the wrong message because it ruins motivation. The message that our students need to hear is that work and effort create ability. “Your success or failure is the result of work, effort and deliberate practice.”

The message that the SportsCenter folks should have conveyed was that ‘Bobby Cramer’s years of hard work and practice paid off. He made it to the show, and in his first start, he beat the Kansas City Royals 3-1.’

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:35 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Is Merit Pay the Answer?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:43 PM | Permalink

Mention accountability and most principals think about state assessments and “adequate yearly progress.” However, when I think of accountability, I think of a lot more than state tests, I think about real world assessments. Today, September 11, is the anniversary of 911, and I couldn’t help but think how our school was put to a severe, real world test that day. It was one of those events in life when the unexpected occurs for which we could not prepare and which tested us to our core.

Looking back over the years, it seems that our school faced an inordinate number of external events that ultimately tested our mindset, values, beliefs, and the strength of our relationships. If we had done our job and walked the talk, we would come through each with shining colors. If we hadn’t, our weaknesses would be exposed.

We had so many things happen that, one year, one side of our annual faculty t-shirt told the story of how “WE SURVIVED” twelve events which included Columbine, 911, the Beltway Sniper, two wars, one hurricane, and a “snowmageddon.” Although these events were all much different, they all tested our culture, our commitment, our focus, and most importantly, our relationships with our students and our relationships with our colleagues.

September 11, 2001 holds a special place in my memory. We can all remember where we were and what we were doing on that fateful day. I can remember it as though it were yesterday.

We were in our weekly staff meeting and our SRO rushed in and told us to turn on the television, which we did just in time to see the second plane fly into the Twin Towers live. This was particularly disconcerting to me because I had stayed in the Vista Hotel on a number of occasions, and that summer, our family had visited New York, bought theater tickets on the ground floor of the Towers, and rode to the top of the Towers.

The worst part of the day for me was the rumors and what we didn’t know. There were so many conflicting reports on the television that we decided to turn it off and have our librarian compile a report consisting only of what we did know. Our police department gave us a report that a nearby apartment building had been bombed and that cars were exploding on Route 7, which was only a block from our school. All these reports later turned out to be false. Our school was so close to the Pentagon that the smoke from the crash floated over the school until late in the day.

I am not going to go into all the details of the day, except to say that our students and our staff passed the test with flying colors. Our students trusted us and we respected them. They always felt safe and secure in our building and we all felt like we were part of the same team.

Personalization was always a priority for our staff and a long-standing strength of our school. We had a number of former Peace Corps volunteers teaching in our school, which helped us establish caring relationships with our diverse student body, which had students from eighty-eight countries speaking sixty-six different languages. In fact, we were so diverse that, in an article that was published that month, National Geographic Magazine had called our school “the most diverse high school in America.”

Many parents came to our school that day with the intent of taking their child home. However, when they saw how calm everything was at our school they decided to allow them to remain. I remember one of our School Board members, who was sobbing almost uncontrollably in the cafeteria, being told by her daughter “Go home, mom. Everything is okay here.”

The Ultimate Test

We had no way of knowing it that day, but the real test of our relationships and our school culture would come in the weeks and months that followed 911. Our diverse student body included a large Muslim population, which made up approximately one-sixth of the school. Reporters and journalists flocked to our school all wanting to know how the kids were getting along. Were there any incidents?

In early November, four of our Muslim students were interviewed on a morning NPR broadcast. It didn’t take long for the interviewer to ask the students if they had been harassed or if there were any incidents at school. Each of the students indicated that school had gone on normally, that they always felt safe at school, and that, to their knowledge, there had been no incidents.

The Bottom Line

Schools are about a lot more than bricks and mortar or tests and test scores. Schools are about people and their relationships. We were tested many times by outside events that we could never have anticipated. Fortunately, our entire staff made daily deposits into our “emotional bank account” so that, when the unexpected occurred, we had a large reserve of goodwill to draw from. In retrospect, these unforeseen events made us a better school and they brought us closer to each other.

By the way, I mentioned one side of our faculty t-shirt told how “WE SURVIVED.” On the other side of the shirt was the following: “WE THRIVED! J.E.B. Stuart High School, A Breakthrough School.”

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:28 PM | Permalink

The new school year has begun and my principal friends are telling me that they are already hearing complaints about the behavior of this year’s senior class. After years of listening to the same complaints, I finally had heard enough and one day I said to our administrative staff, “If we don’t like how our students are behaving, we need to look in the mirror. We have had these students in this school for three years. What have we taught them? Instead of blaming the kids, we need to look at ourselves. If we want our students to change we have to change. They are only doing what we have taught them either by our actions or our inaction. It is our responsibility to teach them what we want them to know and to be able to do. We drive the bus!” From that day forward, whenever someone started complaining or blaming our students we would look at each other, smile and say, “we drive the bus.”

Like many high schools, our school had every excuse to fail—high poverty, high mobility, a large number of second language students, gangs, and a decaying facility. Blaming the poverty of our students and making excuses might make us feel better, but it did nothing for our students. It didn’t matter to them if we could explain away low achievement. After all, it was their lives and their future that was at stake.

The reality is that we, in high school, are the last in line. If we couldn’t help them, there was no one standing in line after us who would. Without our help, our students would be sentenced to a lifetime of marginal employment and second-class citizenship. Blaming students only distracted us and detracted from our mission of helping them graduate ready for postsecondary education and training.

That is why I read Robert Samuelson’s article in the Washington Post with stunned disbelief. Samuelson went through the usual litany of school failures including decades of flat NAEP scores, drops in student achievement from elementary to high school, teacher pay, and dropouts. There is nothing new here. We’ve heard it all before.

The source of our troubles

Samuelson gives two reasons for the failure of school reform efforts:

First, school reform is difficult. On this point, I agree. Meaningful, responsible, and lasting change is as difficult in schools as it is in most organizations. Here is where my disagreement with Samuelson begins. He contends that reforms fail because “no one has discovered transformative changes … that are scalable—easily transferable to other schools.” The operative word here is “easily.” Whereas Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, insists that there are no “silver bullets” when it comes to school reform, Samuelson seems to think that our failure is in not finding the quick fix that will help all schools improve.

Reality Check

We proved for years that we knew how to help some students succeed to high levels. We did very well with the students who should do well. We didn’t do very well with poor, disadvantaged, and under-resourced students, and in that arena we all have a lot to learn.

When are we all going to accept the fact that raising the performance of each and every student is a much more difficult task than anyone had anticipated? Successful students are not successful by accident. Success is about work, effort, and deliberate practice. Improving schools is difficult. It takes time and hard work by, parents, teachers, and principals, and it means a lot of hard work for students.

Reaching previously underserved students requires a change in mindset and subsequently a change in our culture from one in which success is a scarce commodity to a culture in which success is an expectation. Changing the culture of our schools means that we have to change our culture and no one believes that that would be a simple, one to two year, task.

It’s the kids, stupid!

While it may be human nature to want to discover the simplest solution to a complex problem, attributing low student performance to “shrunken student motivation” crosses the line from the rational to the absurd. Blaming students for the problems of education is like blaming a hospital’s problems on sick patients. “We couldn’t cure the disease because our patients wouldn’t get well.”

Think of it. This whole time the answer has been right under our noses. It’s the kids. It’s their fault. The debate is over. Let’s fold the tent and close the schools, because nothing we do will work with these danged kids.

“Who’s driving the bus?”

Experience has taught me that moderately dysfunctional schools blame the feeder schools. Dysfunctional schools blame the parents. Truly dysfunctional schools blame the students. Blaming the kids is a waste of time. In fact, if you are wasting your time blaming anyone, stop! It isn’t helping.

Blaming the kids is a last act of desperation by someone who has run out of answers. Let’s just admit that we don’t have all the answers and then we can get on with the work of finding solutions.

My career as a high school administrator spanned four different decades, and I can tell you that today’s students are the best of the lot. If you asked me to choose students from the 70s, 80s, 90s, or the 00s, I would not hesitate to choose today’s students.

Stop Blaming

Our schools must improve, but blaming parents, teachers, or principals, and especially the  kids won’t accomplish anything. The world, not just our country, is more competitive. We can no longer outwork or outproduce the rest of the world. Today, we must outthink and out create the rest of the world. Ideas, not land, trade, or factories, are the “wealth of nations.” If ideas are wealth, then schools are today’s factories.

Improve, we must, but we won’t get better taking the easy way out. The search for “easy” and “quick” needs to end. We are wasting valuable time and scarce resources as well as eroding public confidence with our obsession with quick fixes.

We must do the right thing, and, more often than not, the right thing is the hard thing to do. We must ensure that each and every student reaches mastery by teaching a rigorous and relevant curriculum in a warm and inviting school environment.

Students must be able to read, write, speak, think, and compute at high levels and to apply those skills in the real world. It is our responsibility to teach our students whatever we want them to know and be able to do.

Students will not exceed the quality of their teachers. It is not up to the kids to improve our schools. It’s up to us. We drive the bus!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:22 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Standardized Tests Scores and Teachers

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

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

Bad, Worse and Worst Outcomes

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

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

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

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

Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:57 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

An Arcane System

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

Finding a Better Way

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

Hurdle after Hurdle after Hurdle

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

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

A Few Setbacks, a Bunch of Gains

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

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

And Then It Was Gone

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:52 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

A Free Personalization Resource

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:17 AM | Permalink

“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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In the past I have discussed the need to hire and retain the best teachers for our schools.  The choice of which candidates to interview and how that process should progress have been the focal points.  As those thoughts were being constructed, I reflected on some of the interviews and hires I have made in the past and what they said about the process. 

The Good

His letter of introduction arrived in early February.  It said that he had grown up in the area attending a school in the district before enrolling at the University of Florida where he received his degree in mathematics.  After graduating he served as a marine, then a Peace Corps volunteer and finally a teacher in an East Los Angeles school district.  His goal was to return to his home area and acquire a teaching job for the next school year.  He asked if he could talk to someone while he was in the area during the latter part of February.  The letter was sent to all twenty-four high schools in the district.  While no job offers could be made until June, I felt that his resume was too good to ignore and immediately set up a time for us to meet.  His interview matched his resume.  During our discussion I asked him about the situation and he responded, “You were the only one who was willing to talk to me.  Everyone told me that they don’t worry about hiring until May or June and to come back later.”   In May he did interview with some other schools many of whom made offers.  But as he told me after joining our staff he remembered who took the time in the “off-season” to speak with him and that convinced him of the level of our dedication.  In the following fifteen years he became an integral part of the school and the department.  He was the assistant coach of cross-country and track as well as the lead IB math teacher.  The lesson was clear—hiring the best teachers is a full-time, year-round activity.

The Bad

His goal was to begin a second career in high school education.  His credentials were impeccable.  He was retiring as a Colonel in the U.S. Army.  In the later years of his career he had served as an instructor and his undergraduate degree was in mathematics.  During his interview I quickly realized he would be an excellent fit for our department.  He had a military bearing but an easy-going manner, two ingredients that bode well for good classroom management.  He expressed an eagerness to learn how to improve his craft and a willingness to teach any classes that were available.  Within a week an offer was made but he told me that he had one more interview before he could make a decision.  Two days later he accepted our job.  The next time I saw him I asked what made the difference.  “Now don’t get me wrong.  I really liked your program and philosophy but my first choice was to teach at another school.  It is where my daughter attends, it is right near the house and it just seemed like the best place for me.  But when I went there for the interview the math chair was out of the building and no assistant principals were available. So I was asked a few questions by the head of the English department.  The next day they offered me a job.  But when I thought about it, I knew that proximity to my house was not nearly enough to convince me to accept the other school’s offer. So, here I am.”  He became precisely the teacher I expected based on his interview.  He had a wonderful rapport with the students, was a positive influence in the department and a great team player.  On more than one occasion he told me how happy he was with the decision he had made.  The message I took from the experience was simply that the interviewing process says as much about the school as it does about the candidate.  The tone of an entire career can be set during that time.

The Ugly

We were in desperate straits.  It was less than two weeks before the start of the school year and one of our top teachers was suddenly retiring due to a devastating disease.  I was on vacation 3000 miles away and the entire focus of the school was on the start of the year.  By phone I contacted my assistant principal who was poring over the resumes that were still available.  One was for a teacher who as a result of Katrina had moved to our area from Louisiana and had been given a one-year contract at another school in our district as a Physics teacher.  Because of his contract he had been destaffed and was available for hire.  A form was sent to the corresponding AP at the other school asking questions about the abilities of this individual.  The response that finalized our decision was to the query “Would you rank this individual in the top 75%, 50%, 25% or 10% of teachers you have worked with in the past?”  The answer was top 10%.  Every other response was equally positive from the administrator. As a result the job offer was made and accepted. 

The results were disastrous.  He was arguably the worst teacher I had ever had in my department.  His lessons were incomprehensible and his classes were totally chaotic.  The complaints started on day one and never let up.  At back to school night we posted an AP in his room to deal with the expected parental rage.  While the hiring process took about three days, the firing process took two years with hundreds of students the ultimate victims. During the first year I attended a district math department chair meeting and asked the chair at the teacher’s former school what she knew about him.  “Oh, they (the administration) suggested that we hire him for our department, but there was no way that was going to happen.  The science people were just happy to get rid of him.” 

The major issue here may be the fact that the best way to remove a teacher from a school is to inflict them on another.  After this experience I made a pledge to never exaggerate the talents of an individual on a recommendation or minimize their deficiencies.  “Passing” teachers through a system hurts everyone but especially the students. It is a practice that must stop.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:08 PM | 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)

"We're setting up our culture to being over-reactive."—Sarah Coyne

Teachers and school leaders know that TV and other media contribute to short attention spans and missing homework assignments. Now we learn from USA Today that reality TV may be teaching our already active and sometimes emotional teens to over-react.

Most mature adults understand that the reactions we see on reality and cable TV are “largely for effect,” are over-gradient, and often inappropriate. However, behavioral researchers believe that we may be more affected than we realize. The problem for teachers and school leaders is that these shows are most often viewed by growing, developing, and easily influenced teens, whose sense of emotional norms may become exaggerated.

"People can be seduced into thinking that's the most common way of reacting to life, when it's not," says Roderick Hart, a professor of communication studies and government at the University of Texas-Austin. Because of this "tutoring" of emotions, Hart says, people are becoming culturally conditioned to think, "it's OK to be more over-reactive."

"Reality television has hyped all the emotions. You can't just be happy. You have to be ecstatic. You can't be upset. You have to be violently angry," he says.

We may just have a new emotional rollercoaster and we may not enjoy the ride.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

“When you give kids more time, you are watering down the courses.”—Unnamed Deputy Superintendent

Jay Mathews of the Washington Post would say that this “old-fashioned attitude turns out to be educationally bankrupt.” I would even go a step further. If you hold learning time constant you are building failure into your school and your school system. The fact is that students have learning differences. They learn different subjects at different rates. Forcing all students down the same assembly line at the same rate only ensures multiple failures.

Charter schools have learned the lesson. Increase learning time and student performance will improve. Hold learning time constant and there will be a significant number of students who fail and fall behind. KIPP schools require students to attend school on Saturday and for three weeks in the summer. Students in charter schools attend summer learning sessions at significantly higher rates than their public school counterparts.

I learned some difficult lessons the hard way. First, summer learning loss was undermining all our hard work. Our teachers became discouraged because we were spending far too much time re-teaching students in the beginning of the school year. Second, no matter how effective we made our professional development activities, we simply could not improve teaching methods or make classes small enough to compensate for the need of some students for extended time. In fact, of the three variables that we could control—time, setting, and methods—time was by far the most impactful. Don’t get me wrong. Schools need to address all three variables. Smaller classes for ninth graders and improved teaching methods made a big difference, but we learned that, unless we gave students the time they needed to learn and the teachers the time they needed to teach, student performance would only show moderate gains. Time gave us “quick-wins” in the short-term while we built the collective capacity of our staff to meet the needs of all of our students over the long-term.

We talk a lot about the need for a customized approach for each and every student. We talk even more about differentiating instruction to meet the needs of individual learners. We read articles about learning and the brain. We discuss multiple intelligences. However, when it comes down to it, we don’t really do what we must do to improve student achievement. Extending learning time by offering students multiple time frames to complete courses, after school programs, Saturday instruction, and summer learning opportunities, is inconvenient, complicated, and downright hard work.

Let’s look at the issue of time from another perspective. Suppose that your school was informed that your students would have one hour less than all other schools across the country to complete the SAT or ACT exam. How would you or your parents respond? I would expect that the response would be one of disbelief and outrage. We want our students to have the time they need to complete the exam. What about other peoples’ children? Shouldn’t they be treated the same way that we would want our own children treated? Shouldn’t they have every chance to succeed?

Along the way, I learned another, even more important, lesson. The inconvenient things and the hardest things were usually the most important. In fact, just about everything we did that worked for students required hard work. None of the strategies that worked for students were the easiest. Take it from someone who learned the hard way, following the path of least resistance, searching for the silver bullet, will only lead to frustration and failure. Nobody ever promised us that doing the right thing for our students would be easy. It’s about time!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:12 AM | Permalink

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

Results

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

Here is what you need to know about KIPP schools:

Additional Instructional Time

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

Required Parent Involvement

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

Student Mobility

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

Mastery

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

Demographics

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

A Principal’s Perspective

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

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

KIPP schools reinforce two key principles of raising student performance:

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post, College Readiness, the Keys, Mel Riddile discussed the Montgomery County Public Schools (MD) findings for success in college.  Of particular interest to me was the correlation between a student’s performance in Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 and the likelihood of graduating from college.  Among the County’s “7 Keys to Success” were that students who took Algebra 1 in the eighth grade and received a grade of “C” or passed Algebra 2 by the junior year had a significantly higher graduation rate than those that did not. There is little doubt MCPS assertions concerning math and college graduation have a high level of validity.

The Best of Plans; the Worst of Plans

Of greater concern were the two different approaches to placing students in math classes presented by Dr. Riddile.  While there should be no arbitrary percentage attached to Algebra 1 readiness, the fact that 39% of all students in MCPS are enrolled in Algebra 1 prior to their freshmen year would appear very reasonable.  Based on my years of teaching and observing the performance of students in this course, I have found that depending upon the unique nature of a particular group of students somewhere between one-third and one-half of a class are capable of benefitting from Algebra 1 prior to the ninth grade.  Those that are not ready at this point in their educational careers should take a rigorous eighth-grade course to prepare them for success in the next year.  With such a background Algebra 2 in the junior year (and pre-calculus as seniors) should be well within reach. 

It was the second school system described by Dr. Riddile that was extremely troubling.  In this district, located in close proximity to MCPS, early exposure to Algebra 1 was reserved for a far smaller group.  The philosophy was that enrollment in this class prior to high school was the exclusive domain of the “gifted and talented.”  While such a definition does not automatically indicate too selective a process, additional information is very disturbing.  The initial testing and screening process eliminates four out of every five students.  Then to compound matters the only students who are given algebra preparation are the 5% (one in twenty) who are labeled “gifted and talented” in math.  It is small wonder that in this district the percentage taking Algebra 1 prior to high school is less than half that of MCPS.  The negative ramifications of such an approach are immense.  Approximately one-fourth of the students in this system are being needlessly held back in their math careers.  Such decisions deny them the opportunity to take AP or IB Calculus in high school and place them at a seriously weakened position when compared to their peers in neighboring districts.  While such decisions may not prevent students to advanced to and succeed at the college level (they still have the opportunity to take Algebra 2 in grade 11), these individuals will be at a competitive disadvantage both in their collegiate options and their mathematical skill level. 

I concur with Dr. Riddile when he states, “To me this looks a lot like tracking. Not only are the students in this school system being victimized by low adult expectations, but they are systematically being prevented from taking a more challenging course of study in high school.”  At a time when the math skills of the typical student in the United States is lagging significantly behind those of others in the world no qualified student should ever be held back because of the lack of a specific title or a quota.

An Equally Worst Plan

Fortunately, this approach to Algebra 1 prior to high school is a minority view.  However, there is another equally misguided philosophy concerning Algebra 1 placements and poor math performance that was not discussed by Dr. Riddile and is fast becoming standard practice in too many school districts. This response is the decision to make Algebra 1 the standard math course for virtually every eighth grader.  Just as excluding capable students from advancing at the appropriate rate, the rush to have “8^th grade Algebra 1 for all” can be equally injurious to the high school math careers of a large number of students.  This ill-advised plan will be the focus of my next three posts.

Next:  The case against Algebra 1 for everyone

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:32 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

The Wrong Solution for the Wrong Problem

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

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

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

Better Arguments

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

Extinction by Improvement

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:38 PM | Permalink

Current school turnaround models call for the replacement of the principal, and, in some cases, half of the teaching staff. However, the real problem may not be that there are too many bad principals and assistant principals, but that the principals and assistant principals don’t stay long enough.

Recent research conducted by Dr. Ed Fuller reveal some alarming data about the mobility of both principal and assistant principals:

• 70% of principals leave their positions within five years.
• 60% of newly hired assistant principals were no longer in the position after five years on the job.
• 30% of the assistant principals were no longer in school administration.
• The largest proportion of assistant principals either became principals or moved to central office positions.
• Turnover in assistant principals was highest in low-performing schools and schools with higher concentrations of poor and minority students.
• High turnover among school administrators correlates with high teacher turnover.
• Ironically, under-resourced students, who are most in need of stability, are least likely to attend schools with stable adult populations.
• The researchers conclude that school improvement is extremely difficult when the staff in constantly churning.
• The study found that principals who had been assistant principals were less likely to leave their jobs.

The Bottom Line

• Consistency and stability over time are key elements of both quality classroom instruction and systemic school improvement.
• Change for the sake of change, also known as moving people around for the sake of moving them around, is not a formula for responsible change.
• Instead of devising ways of getting rid of or moving school leaders, efforts should be directed at finding ways to keep them in the jobs longer and to build their capacity to lead change efforts in their schools.
• While constantly changing the players gives the appearance that change is occurring, the reality is that all the activity only amounts to a simple rearranging of the furniture.
• Don’t just move people around. Improve the capacity of those who are already on the job.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Technology is not only increasing academic rigor by driving up the complexity of reading material, but it is also making it more difficult for school leaders and parents to reign in some destructive behaviors like bullying. The Washington Examiner points out that bullying is on the rise as “Kids find new ways to pick on each other—off the radar of even the most watchful parents and school officials.” One school system reported 1,200 incidents of bullying in one year.

A Maryland bill to curb gang activity in schools may help monitor the bullying problem by increasing information sharing between police and the schools. One parent finally admitted that she is being forced to monitor her child’s Internet use.

Robin Goodman, a clinical psychologist, said, “It used to be, someone would throw a kid’s book on the ground or whisper rumors about them. Now, what you have is you have your phone, you have the Internet.  You don’t escape it. It’s not like there’s a safety zone.”

The Bottom Line: Anyone with an Internet connection has access to an electronic printing press that can do a lot of damage in a short period of time. The problem is that there is no redo button on the Internet. Whatever is posted remains on the Internet forever.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:36 PM | Permalink

The other day, I was talking with a colleague about outstanding teacher advisors we have known over our careers. Faculty advisers who work with SCA, NHS, student newspapers, yearbooks, and various clubs and student organizations can be a real asset to a school. Teacher advisers should be counted on to be the “keeper of the student voice” in our schools. They are a key part of our effort to build relationships and to create a personalized school environment--one that is warm and inviting, safe and orderly, and where there is a person and a place for every student.

My friend and I each identified outstanding teacher leaders who really made a difference in our schools. Admittedly, we had no problem coming up with a list of people who were simply awful. Sometimes it is just as important to know what doesn’t work as to know what does work. Here are my top ten good and bad characteristics of advisers:

1. Immature – It seems obvious, but the best advisers are mature, balanced, and well adjusted. I have learned that maturity has no relationship to age. Some people simply never grow up. If the adviser is not mature when he/she takes on the responsibility, chances are they won’t become more mature under the stress and pressure that inevitably comes in these positions.
2. Full speed ahead – My biggest challenge in working with teacher advisers was to show them how to keep from being one or two year wonders. When they first take over, they view their success as being based on frequency instead of quality. For example, an SCA sponsor who cannot take a long-term approach and pace themselves will burn out quickly.
   The best advisers have a life of their own and they are able to balance their commitments with the need to take care of themselves. In other words, they take a long-term approach and are careful to pace themselves. I encouraged them to work with me to develop a long-range plan and to work the plan. I repeatedly counseled them saying, “Don’t let things get to the point where you resent the time you spend advising.”
3. Lone Wolf – Advisers who believe that their job is to lead and take action and not to talk, consult, or collaborate quickly become a liability to the school. Within a few short months, the “lone wolf” will manage to alienate every adult in the building. People don’t like surprises and the “lone wolf” is one surprise after another.
   Top advisers are collaborators. They seek input from students, staff, and administrators alike. Their decisions are well thought out and never surprise anyone.
4. Crusader – Another adviser type that quickly becomes a liability is the crusader who takes the “me and my kids against the world” approach. These people set up conflicts between the staff and the students by putting everyone in the situation in which, if they don’t agree, they are seen as not caring for the students.
   The best advisers guide students, advocate for them, and collaborate with their peers. They have the maturity to be able to empathize with both students and teachers. It is never a matter of we versus they, but, rather, we is us.
5. Know it all – These advisers have an underlying belief that their competency rests on their knowing all the answers. Not knowing threatens their self-esteem. So, they expend a lot of effort trying to prove how much they know and what they can do instead of focusing on the students and outcomes.
   Top advisers are constantly asking questions and seeking advice and input from as many of their colleagues as possible. As a result, they focus all their effort on accomplishing the task at hand instead of cleaning up messes and covering up mistakes.
6. Controllers – These advisers have a difficult time relating to students. Instead of seeking cooperation, these advisors are obsessed with control. Almost immediately after becoming an adviser, students will begin to complain that the advisor never listens to them.
   Top advisers seek to gain voluntary cooperation from their students. They want their students to share responsibility and to take ownership.
7. Big Ego – These advisers are more concerned with making a statement than about making a difference. Being right is more important than doing the right thing. Getting credit is more important than accomplishment.
   The best advisers are facilitators and catalysts. They put the students out front while the support from the background.
8. Disorganized – A lack of organization dooms even the best ideas and intentions to failure.
   The best advisers can manage projects. It is no surprise that these individuals always have the best-organized classrooms and the best run field trips.
9. Procrastinators – Advisers who have a tendency to put things off until the last moment soon incur the wrath of their colleagues.
   Planning well in advance is a signal to their colleagues that top advisers care about them and that they are considerate of the needs of their colleagues. Because they earn the trust of the students, their peers, and the administration, these advisers find it easy to gain staff support for their projects.
10. Avoiders – Advisers who avoid conflict and who find it difficult to say no to any student request quickly find that they are getting a lot of what they were trying to avoid—conflict.
    Top advisers guide students. When students approach them with far out requests, they know how to ask the right questions and to guide students into a more realistic approach—one with a good chance of success.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:00 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:11 PM | Permalink

Think about it, if the first assumption we make is false, then every behavior that comes after that is wrong. What if the entire school reform effort was based on a number of false assumptions?

Recently, I participated in a meeting of high-ranking education officials. After the meeting, I quickly wrote down a list of approximately 20 false assumptions that I heard expressed by participants in the meeting.

Keep in mind, that the key strategies and policies under which we are currently operating have all been conceived on the basis of these false assumptions.  Not surprisingly, most of the participants and policy mavens in the meeting had never worked in a school, and none had worked in a school under high stakes accountability.

It is important to note that, at least from my perspective, these were all sincere, well-intentioned people who truly wanted the best for all students. However, good intentions do not, in and of themselves, necessarily translate into viable plans.

I am not going to address all 20 false assumptions here. I will do that in later posts. Instead, I will talk about two related assumptions that seemed to dominate the conversation. Both assumptions relate to the models for turning around the lowest performing schools.

Keep in mind that these false assumptions need to become true assumptions if we hope to educate all students to high levels. Just as lasting change in one school depends on changing the school’s culture—attitudes, beliefs, expectations—so too will we have to change our national mindset in reference to the educational landscape if we hope to improve all schools, particularly the lowest performing.

False Assumption #1: Experienced teachers and principals are anxious to work in struggling schools.

Actually, the opposite is true. Experienced principals and teachers want to work in the highest performing schools. Being a principal in a struggling school is a risky proposition. In fact, it can be a career-killing experience. A risk that most of my colleagues who not volunteer to take on.

When principal positions opened in our district, the more affluent schools had more applications than could be processed. On the other hand, when positions opened in low socioeconomic schools, there were only a few applicants.

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

We had far fewer applicants for our vacancies than did other more affluent schools in the district. Now, as the years went by and our student achievement and reputation improved, recruiting was not as difficult. In fact, our teachers were such strong believers in our school and its success that they became our best recruiting tool. However, in the early days of our school improvement effort, we had a hard time competing with the top schools for talented teachers.

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

Having said that, I know that I could take our staff and raise the achievement level of students in any school. I also know that many of the teachers in those resourced school wouldn’t last a single day in our school. So, who is the better teacher?

False Assumption #2: The best teachers want to teach the neediest students.

Every practicing principal and teacher leader knows how hard it is to convince the best, most experienced teachers to teach the neediest students. In fact, the culture of most schools is the exact opposite. The neediest students are most often assigned to the newest teachers who have the least seniority. Just try getting your most experienced teachers to teach ninth graders.

Over time, less experienced teachers work their way up the ladder and earn the plum assignments like honors, AP, or IB classes. In most schools, the teachers who teach to lowest performing students are looked down on by the other teachers as being intellectually less capable. Given the prevailing attitudes of their peers and the current climate, why would teachers who teach in high-performing schools want to apply to teach in low-performing schools, particularly when they read every day about teachers in those schools being fired or sanctioned. Teaching in a high-impact school today is career threatening and a risky proposition at best.

Believe me, it takes a special person to work in high-poverty, highly diverse schools, many of which are located in the poorest areas. People who work in those schools do so, not because of money, but because their heart is in the work.

The Solution

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

The Best Kept Secret

Everyone who has ever worked in a diverse, high-poverty school knows full well that they receive more appreciation in one day than their colleagues in more affluent schools receive in a lifetime. They learn as I did that the more you give, the more you receive and that, giving to the neediest students is receiving. Our national challenge is to create a culture in which those who work in those schools, instead of being looked down on, are honored and revered.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In Tripping Up the Educational Process, The Teacher Leader provides a great example of why it is so much better for school leaders and classroom teachers to seek cooperation than to continually pursue the illusion of control. Although the issue of field trips and lost class time may seem trivial to some, believe me, it is an important issue for the classroom teacher.

Along with copier breakdowns and chronically tardy students, students constantly being away from their classrooms continues to be a major source of teacher dissatisfaction. Just as important is the mixed message that is sent went classrooms are continuously disrupted. Teachers ask, “what is important, teaching and learning or something else, anything else?”

When thinking about the importance of collaboration relating to field trips and other cases of the interruption of classroom instruction, school leaders—administrators and teachers as well—would do well to consider the following:

The 80-15-5 Rule

80% of all field trips are legitimate. 5% should never be taken. 15% could go one way or another. When we, as school leaders, fail to differentiate between must go, need to go, and nice to go interruptions/field trips, we are unintentionally creating a situation in which the 15% “bubble trips” become more like the 5% “don’t go” trips and we have a critical mass of marginal field trips, most of which come at the worst possible times, like the end of a semester.

It is our responsibility as leaders to deal with the 5%. The question is how? Contrary to popular opinion, most school leaders don’t like to say no to teachers, particularly when teachers are making a legitimate request that means that they are taking on more work for themselves.

Collaboration Leads to Cooperation

In reality, The Teacher Leader is talking about true collaboration and shared responsibility more than about field trips. For our school, field trip procedures turned out to be a classic case of “those who are most affected should be involved in the decisions.” After much thought, I realized that, in most cases, I wasn’t personally impacted by field trips. However, as the pressures from ever-increasing accountability grew, I became aware that, as teachers were holding themselves more and more accountable for student performance, they wanted more input into decisions that affected their classrooms.

I am not a good guesser! Are you?

I learned the hard way that, although I spent a lot of time trying to support and please teachers, it was much better if I simply asked them and involved them in decisions that directly impacted their lives as teachers—bell schedules, field trips, exam schedules, master schedules, room assignments, tardy policies, attendance procedures, literacy initiatives, and math curriculum.

Silos of Expertise

Over time, I learned that it took a number of highly skilled people to complete the complex task of raising the achievement of each and every student. To reach every student, we needed to tap into the collective intelligence of our entire staff. Everyone needed to work together. To get everyone working together they had to be involved in key decisions. Without that involvement, there would be no commitment or ownership.

No Messes

Looking back, involving people in collaborative decisions takes more time on the front end, but we spent much less time on the back end cleaning up messes from poorly thought-out decisions. Collaboration actually saved us time and meant that the up front time was spent focusing on the decision and not on the personalities and hurt feelings that we encountered on the back end of poor, hastily-made decisions.

High fences make good neighbors

The irony is that those leaders, who most want to please, often create the most conflict. Weak leaders, through their need to be liked and lack of will to act, set up conflicts between and among staff members. Some schools operate like Deadwood—anything goes. Lawlessness in itself creates more lawlessness. If we want everyone to work together, we are going to have to work with everyone to set clear, agreed upon procedures, and we are going to have to have the will to follow through with those who refuse to work together.

Peer Pressure is a Great Thing

Used positively, peer pressure is a great thing. As soon as their colleagues began making the decisions on field trips, two things happened.  First, the number of field trip requests dropped. Second, the quality of the trips improved—they were better thought out and more efficiently run.

One last thought

You can’t have something unless you are willing to give it away. In this case, you won’t get cooperation unless you are willing to give up the illusion of authority and control and to give cooperation through collaboration.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Though totally unrehearsed, the conversation was the perfect follow up to my post “In Education the Little Things Can Mean a Lot.”

“Stu, I had a bit of a blow-up today.” My friend Frank uttered a brief, nervous laugh for punctuation. “There was a business department field trip today and the first we heard about it was this morning.  The list of students was sent out after school had already started and only twenty minutes before their bus left.”  Frank is passionate about many things: his family, pro football, data analysis and interruptions to his classes. “I lost a whole day and now I have to change tomorrow as well. I ended up writing a pretty angry note to my department chair and an assistant principal.”  Unfortunately, the incident that provoked Frank’s angry note is not an isolated occurrence.  As a result of a series of events that were completely avoidable, classes throughout the school had been derailed.  

An Issue of Professional Courtesy and Responsibility

Frank’s dismay was justified.  It was the result of factors that could and should have been addressed long before that belated list appeared on his email.  The late notification was just one in a series of problems.  The trip was scheduled during the last week of the semester.  It was the day Frank had set aside for his mid-term exam review.  Grades were due at the end of the week so the students who missed the class would have few options to make up the work or prepare for a crucial test.  There is little question that many other teachers in the building were having the same experience.

Answering to a Higher Authority

This “surprise” field trip did not have to happen.  Given adequate notice, teachers can adjust—classroom activities can be modified and information can be disseminated to students in advance.  Frank had none of these options. 

It is an administrative imperative that this situation does not occur.  The repair cannot be performed at the teacher level.  From Frank’s perspective it destroyed multiple lesson plans, frayed many educator nerves and adversely effected student performance.  From the business teacher’s perspective the trip was an important opportunity for her students to have a real world experience outside of the classroom. In addition, on such short notice, that discussion would be reactive rather than proactive. While the administrative team cannot guarantee professionalism and courtesy it can create a positive educational environment within a school that precludes such occurrences and ensures that field trips work.  

Learning to Co-exist

This discussion is not designed to be a diatribe against field trips.  When done properly these trips can be remarkably effective learning tools.  But in the high-stress world of today’s education, all teachers believe their class is the most important in the building and become very protective of every allotted minute.  The solution is simple to state but difficult to attain.  A method must be created that will allow meaningful and productive field trips but protect the integrity of the other classes in the school.

The Fine Line Between Process and Bureaucracy

During my tenure as Coordinator of Instruction one of my points of emphasis was to make school field trips work for everyone in the building.  To that end, together with the administrative team and the department chairs, we developed a set of guidelines for teachers wishing to take their students out of school for educational travel.   This policy, Procedure for Excusing Students from Class, gave everyone in the building a precise plan that would ensure that Frank’s day would have been much better.  (If you are interested in a complete copy of this policy please contact the site)  Without restating the entire policy the highlights were these:

- All proposed field trips were categorized by the number of students involved.  Groups of less than fifty had one process, ones with more than fifty followed similar but slightly more rigorous steps.

- All proposed field trips must be submitted to the sponsoring teacher’s department chair in a timely manner.  For the smaller groups, approval was required by the DC and the Coordinator of Instruction.  The larger groups required majority approval at a department chair meeting.

- Based on the number of students involved a stringent timetable was established for notifying the entire faculty of the impending classroom disruption. 

The key element in these standards was that they were not designed to discourage field trips but rather to encourage better implementation of them.

Perfect Should Not Be the Enemy of the Good

When I told Frank that what his school needed was a similar set of guidelines he was not impressed.  “You know as well as I do that no matter how many rules you make some people will not follow them.”  His analysis was correct but missed the point.

These guidelines certainly did not stop all abuses within the building.  But what they did accomplish was to create a school wide awareness of how to appropriately conduct a field trip.  This awareness, in turn, spawned a culture where teachers who did not follow the guidelines were the exception rather than the rule.   And, as a bonus, following the various steps actually improved many field trips.

My favorite example of this outcome revolved around the school’s music teacher’s plan to have her students perform Christmas Carols in a local mall.  Her initial proposal was extravagant.  A large number of students would miss multiple days.  When told that this would be a problem, she worked out a new plan in which no student would miss more than one day.  Her justification for the trip to the department chairs was stunning.  She correlated standards within her Program of Studies that would be met by the event.  In addition, she clearly explained how and why the students were chosen to participate, the benefits to be gained by both her program and the school, and a timetable for making up any missed work.  The two days for the trip were chosen for their minimal impact on the school calendar.  The list of students involved was distributed weeks in advance and ultimately the teacher, her students and the rest of the school had no complaints.

Can You Keep a Secret?

I did not have the heart to tell Frank, but over the years that we followed this process no field trip was ever denied.  Some were modified but none were cancelled.  In fact virtually every vote was unanimous in favor of the trip.  Realistically, every department chair was loath to vote against another teacher’s trip when they knew someday they might be proposing one of their own.  The most significant outcome was that by establishing an institutional plan of clear, intelligent guidelines that were widely disseminated throughout the staff the only numerical decline was reserved for surprise classroom disruptions, missed assignments, and faculty complaints.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:05 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Promotions Should Not Be Social

I was recently asked to respond to a comment that a reader had found on-line. 

“Chester E. Finn's March 20 op-ed "The Case for Saturday School" left out the most important cause of the failure of the U.S. education system: social promotion. In almost every public school, students are promoted from one grade to another whether or not they've learned the material in that grade…every year the student gets farther behind because the new material being taught assumes he or she knows what was taught the previous years. Since students know they'll pass anyway, they have no motivation to study, and their parents no motivation to encourage them.”

While I do not know the credentials of the writer, I can strongly identify with his conclusions.  As unqualified student after unqualified student moves effortlessly (literally) through the system there is one ultimate reality--the educational buck stops at the high school door.   These social promotions are ineffective procedures that present a significant hindrance to the overall educational process.   

Education’s Pothole

Who would possess strong credentials for evaluating the impact of social promotion?  Someone who teaches high school freshmen would certainly have a front row seat to the process.  When I asked just such a person about her experiences with these students she responded without hesitation.

“Every year after the first interims I would look at my students’ grades to see if anyone needed additional support or moved to a more appropriate class.  Not the students with averages in the fifties; those I could usually talk with individually; determine what was wrong; and develop a plan to resolve it.  The ones I felt needed a major intervention were those who had averages in the twenties.  With such students the first thing I would check was their reading level by contacting the literacy teacher who tested the reading skills of all of our students.  If the individual was reading more than two or three years below grade level, the literacy teacher would intercede.  If I thought the problem was attendance I would contact the school’s truant officer.  But many times I would discover that neither of these was a factor.

“There were tell-tale signs.  These students were unfazed with grades 50 or more points lower than the class average.  Likewise, no teaching approach, punishment, or administrative action would have an effect on them.  Questions to counselors, parents or the student would usually lead to a dead end.  One of the most revealing traits was the relative lack of emotion.  They would rarely get angry or aggressive.  They simply did not care.  Such indicators would lead me to go to the student’s permanent file and more times than not the word “Retained” would be stamped on the middle school transcript in big red letters.  When I would inquire about how this word was on the folder but the student was in my class, the answer would be ‘They attended summer school’.  Middle school summer school was graded on a pass/fail criterion.  Middle school teachers tell me it is basically a “seat” time situation.  Moreover the only requirement for promotion was that they ‘pass’ English and math.  In addition, many of the student records I looked at did not even have a notation about summer school.  I had students who had passed one or two classes in three years at middle school and a couple who never passed a single course during the regular session.

“But for me the saddest moment came near the end of the school year when I would inform them that they would have to repeat my course next year.  They were genuinely shocked at the actual outcome of their lack of classroom performance.  I really felt sorry for them.”

Unfortunately this story is not an isolated event.  Bring up the subject of social promotion to any teacher or administrator who works with freshmen and a horror story or two will quickly follow. 

Students who fail 75% or more of their middle school classes represent a breakdown in education.  Placing them into a high school classroom is unconscionable.  The negative impacts resonate throughout the entire school community.

All the Wrong Lessons

Here are a few of the messages being sent by adults and received by socially promoted students:

- The educational system has shown students that regardless of their grades they will be promoted.  Result: socially promoted students are not disturbed by poor grades.

- The educational system has shown students that regardless of their study skills they will be promoted.   Result: socially promoted students are not equipped with adequate study skills.

- The educational system has shown students that despite administrative actions they will be promoted.  Result: socially promoted students are not concerned about administrative actions.

- The educational system has shown students that, regardless of numerous parent conferences, they will be promoted.  Result: socially promoted students are not affected by parent conferences.

- The educational system has shown students that regardless of their attendance record they will be promoted.  Result: If they miss days they are not concerned.

- Furthermore, socially promoted students are not always attendance problems since for them school is venue for socializing not learning.

A Losing Situation for Everyone

Socially promoting students has negative impacts throughout a school.  They disrupt classrooms with their behavior, distract attention from qualified students, and occupy a disproportionate amount of attention from counselors, specialists and administrators.  However, it is the socially promoted student who is the victim of the worst crime.  With the assistance of the educational system they are being deprived of the tools necessary for success.  Year after year poor performance is ignored.  Then, suddenly and without notice, the rules abruptly change in high school.  The exact behavior that moved them forward in the past is now unacceptable.   A failing grade in World History, Biology, Algebra or English result in repeating the course the following year.  Expecting a fourteen-year-old to anticipate and react to this change in policy, borders on educational malpractice.  

Between an Educational Rock and Hard Place

Currently, the only available option to social promotion is retention.  But demanding that a child repeat a grade has proven to be equally unsuccessful.  Data indicate that the process of retention is rampant.  On average about 15% of students are retained annually (National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 1998) - a practice that leads to increased dropout rates.   Even though there is an occasional   increase in motivation immediately following retention, research clearly demonstrates that it quickly fades and very few students improve their performance from the previous year. 

Finding a better solution for students who are socially promoted as well as those retained will be both difficult and expensive.  Ninth-grade students with fifth-grade educations are clearly   unprepared to deal with the high school learning environment.  The best response would be a plan that employs early identification and frequent interventions on behalf of these students.  For the neediest children, special schools may have to be created with staffs trained to deal with the special needs of these individuals.  This solution would be expensive and time consuming for any district implementing it.  But the current alternatives are a prime example of “lose-lose”.   In addition to the immediate negative impact on schools, they are producing future adults ill equipped to effectively contribute to society.  While simply moving such students on to high school may be cost effective in the short term, such promotions are fiscally and educationally irresponsible in the long haul—for everyone.   We must find a better way.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:59 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

When I was a high school football coach one painful lesson I learned was that the smallest details could become critically important.   Often a simple, easily correctable oversight would ruin my carefully constructed strategies.  My most vivid example involves a plan that I created for my star wide receiver, which if implemented correctly, would result in a long pass completion and a win for my team in a critical district game. Unfortunately I placed far too much emphasis on the ultimate result and not nearly enough on the basic fundamentals – the little things.  After three consecutive penalties against my star receiver lining up incorrectly, the play had to be scrapped and ultimately the game was lost by less than a touchdown.  Sadly, throughout my teaching career I encountered many similar “little things” that subtly undermined the effectiveness of the overall educational system.   In an economic climate where money for schools is in extremely short supply, making cost-free adjustments to remove these negatives should be given a high priority. 

A Prime Example

This year the first semester of my former school system is appropriately scheduled to end on January 28, which marks the ninetieth day in the 180-day school year.   But logic appears to unravel when the year was further subdivided into quarters.   In the school year 2009-2010 the system’s first “fourth” consists of 38 days while the second contains 52 days.  The difference between the two “quarters”, 14 days, represents almost three weeks of classroom time.  Factoring in the numerous schedule changes, late arrivals and general confusion of the first few days of any school year, the disparity becomes even greater.  In terms of actual instructional days the second quarter in this calendar is approximately 50% longer than the first.

Size Does Matter

So why does this situation trouble me as a professional educator?  Is not a ninety day semester equal to a ninety day semester regardless of how it is divided?  Not necessarily. Forty years of experience have convinced me that the results of the first grading period are the most critical for many adolescents.  This initial evaluation can set their expectations for the entire year.  A poor grade at the beginning of the year can discourage some young students for the rest of the course, while a superior grade can instill confidence that will positively impact their overall performance.  I am not, of course, saying that shorter grading periods cause poorer grades.  What I am arguing is that basing the first, possibly critical, grade for a course on work done in a significantly diminished time frame is extremely unwise and unnecessary.  And more importantly like so many “little things” this situation is easily avoidable.  Why, you may be wondering, is the division of the semester so unequal in the first place?  The explanation for this glitch is based on the solar system and the U.S. Constitution, i.e. in 2009 Labor Day is late and Election Day is early.  The argument for closing the schools on Election Day makes sense—the buildings are needed to provide space for the public to vote.  In addition to Election Day, teachers are given a “workday” on Monday because of the fear that a Tuesday student holiday would result in significant absenteeism on the previous day.  I will not debate the merits of these decisions but rather question why they must also be used to mark the end of the grading period.   The original premise for having workdays prior to issuing grades was to allow teachers to grade papers, record the results and manually average all of the information.  With the advent of computer grading programs much of those reasons are obsolete.  For the benefit of the students there are few teachers who would disagree with the idea of extending the quarter to the Friday of the next week.  That would give the first grading period 48 days which, allowing for three days of relative instructional inactivity at the beginning of the year, would equate to 45 instructional days which is exactly one-fourth of the year.  The two workdays could be used to grade and record all work until that point.  And the ultimate cost to make the system better?  Zero.

A Bunch of Little Can Become a Lot

So where else can changes be made to improve the educational environment?  In a world of multi-million dollar bond issues, costly technology initiatives, and high-cost guest speakers, what other no-cost “little things” can be done to improve student performance?  Here are a few:

• Make the increasingly complex job of teaching easier. 

• Try as much as possible to limit teaching preps to no more than two.  A third preparation translates into hours of extra time spent on a single class at the expense of the other four classes.

• Schools should also try to minimize the number of teachers who have to change rooms throughout the day.  In the brief time between classes stationary teachers are organizing worksheets, loading power points, answering students’ questions and removing materials utilized by the previous students.  These tasks are even more difficult if the two classes are different courses.  But it is nearly impossible if one is moving through a hallway with a cart headed to a different classroom through hundreds of students.  While in many buildings space is limited, there are creative, cost-free ways to keep staff members in place.  If a school is on block scheduling, teachers can share two rooms but remain in one on one day and the other on the next.  When this arrangement is not possible, place off periods or lunch between location changes so it can be done in a more orderly manner.

• Maximize teacher prep time during the in-service week before the opening of school.  I once did a survey of my school’s faculty asking how much time they spent working on classroom preparation immediately prior to the school year.  More than 50% had to come in for at least the two Saturdays before opening day in addition to spending hours after contract time during the week just to be ready for the first day of school. Lessen the number of hours of staff development and faculty meetings and use that extra time for   individual teacher planning.  Think of this trade-off in these terms.  Just how attentive do you think teachers can be when they are preoccupied with critical tasks that will impact the success of their first week of school?  Staff development opportunities can be postponed until later in the year when there is less pressure.

• Reduce classroom surprises.  Nothing disrupts the learning process more than interruptions.  A college professor once told me, “I don’t know how you high school teachers ever get anything done between fire drills, class meetings, moments of silence, announcements, etc.”  And no interruption is as bad as the ones that come as a surprise.  There is nothing inherently wrong with students going on field trips but strict guidelines should be in place to ensure that they have the least amount of negative impact as possible.  Notice of impending trips should be given well in advance as well as a comprehensive, accurate list of the students involved.  Teachers can plan more effectively if they know whether two or twenty-two students will be missing in a particular class period. All such trips should be carefully vetted as to their relative value to the course curriculum. Likewise all other changes in the day such as pep rallies, class meetings, and special events should be announced far enough in advance to allow teachers to adjust their lesson plans.

• Hold meetings when they are necessary, not simply because they are scheduled.  Just because the original calendar says there will be a class meeting or faculty meeting each quarter should not mandate that meeting occur if there is nothing to discuss. 

• Maintain parity when disrupting classes.   When planning a pep rally, fire drill and class meeting within a two-week period do not schedule them to impact the same class.

• Have the students cheer in the afternoon, evacuate in the morning and meet somewhere in between.  Teachers can deal with losing a small portion of a class but not multiple times especially when it can be avoided.  When making a special bell schedule for an assembly, carnival or PSAT test, do not simply replace an entire class; restructure the entire day with each period shortened by fifteen to twenty minutes. It is easier to maintain instruction if all classes meet less time rather than one class be shortened by a significant amount.    Teachers can easily overcome the loss of a few minutes by talking faster, slower or removing a portion of the material; they cannot compensate for a class that never met.

This list is obviously incomplete.  I am confident there are many other adjustments available and I would be very interested in hearing about them from other educators.  But regardless of the specific items under consideration, fixing the “little things” will improve the educational system.  Of course, they will only correct a very small portion but with a price tag of zero the cost-to-value ratio is immense and the resulting improvement in morale is immeasurable. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Recently, I was talking with a friend who lived in a condominium complex, which just held an owners meeting. According to my friend, the owners were complaining that they were repeatedly speaking with rule-breaking guests who were misusing the swimming pool and other facilities. The residents wanted someone else to do the reprimanding, someone from the office.

To his surprise, I told him that that was exactly what should happen. The residents should talk to rule breakers. After all, it is their house. I further explained to him that anytime you hear someone say “that’s not my job” you have a dysfunctional organization. You want people taking ownership. You want them to appropriately involve themselves.

Yes, it should be someone’s primary responsibility to follow-up, but everything is everyone’s job. Everyone has a role. When everyone takes ownership everything works better.

If there is a recurring problem, an effort should be made to discover the underlying cause and to offer a suggested remedy. Ignoring a problem does not work.

“Not my job” is another form of blaming and excusing. “Not my job” is a backhanded criticism of the person, whomever it is, who is not doing the job.

High performing schools are high performing because blaming and excusing behaviors have ceased. In these schools everyone takes ownership. They don’t wait for others to act. They take action because the believe that they are a part of the process and the outcome.

Visitor after visitor to our school wanted us to explain how we were able to get our students to go to class on time. I explained that reducing tardiness and promoting promptness took the cooperation of every teacher and every staff member. As principal, I had a role. My job was to deal with students who were chronically late to class. My job was to be visible encouraging students to be on time to class. Our teachers had a role. They stood at the classroom door greeting students, who were taught to enter the room and to begin work without being directed to do so. Everyone followed the same routine. I remember one teacher saying to a group of visitors, “In this school, it is easier to do the things I need to do, because everyone is working together.” On another occasion, when a visitor asked a transfer student what was the difference between this school and the last one she attended, she replied, “In this school, the teachers follow the rules.”

After our staff collectively decided what needed to be done, it was my job as a leader to encourage everyone, including myself, to work together as a team. Whether it is enforcing the dress code, cell phone policy or tardy policy, it is everyone’s job. We want owners not observers. People will step up if they are supported. If not, they simply close their classroom doors and go into a survival mode.

Whatever happens in the school happens because we, the adults, make it happen either through action or inaction. After all, we drive the bus.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:45 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In his recent post, “The Algebra Miracle”, Mel Riddile wrote of the daunting complexity of implementing a radical approach to solving high failure rates in high school Algebra 1.  Riddile noted many factors that are necessary for such change but emphasized that there must be a high degree of support at every level of the school staff.

“The Teacher Leader was willing to pay the price to set up both students and teachers for success…A successful school wide initiatives like the Algebra Project requires that multiple leaders work in partnership. Without a strong, respected and trusted teacher leader the math teachers would never have bought in. The principal had to lend full and active support with parents, counselors, other departments in the school, and the school district all of which had different reasons for questioning the approach. The head counselor had to convince the counselors that the much more complicated scheduling and re-scheduling process would be worth the time and effort. Any weakness among any of the three leaders would have ensured that the effort failed.”

In previous postings I have addressed in broad terms the steps that were essential to acquire this wide spread cooperation.  But as Riddile relates, these negotiations required a significant degree of persistence, personal contact and honest dialogue.  Below is a significantly more detailed history of what was required to make the “Algebra Project” a reality.  

Starting At the Beginning

The original idea of eliminating a separate Algebra 1 Part 1 program began long before the implementation of state end-of-course barrier exams.  At a district math department chair meeting the Math Instructional Coordinator noted that there was a high failure rate in Algebra 1 by students who had taken Part 1 the previous year.  Even individuals receiving high marks in Part 1 were struggling to pass at the succeeding level.  He shared his belief that this situation was the direct result of the “watered down” nature of the Part 1 course.  These sentiments reinforced every observation I had made about the situation.  At the twenty-year mark of my teaching career there was little doubt that the student outcomes in high school Algebra 1 were dismal.  Algebra 1 Part 1 students were labeling themselves as mathematical incompetents.  For many of these individuals such branding became a self-fulfilling prophecy.  In addition, their isolation from students who could serve as role models for classroom success lessened their ability to change the trajectory of their math future.   Of even greater concern was the fact that placing a student in Part 1 could be a seminal event for the remainder of their math education.  Relocating a misplaced Part 1 student to Algebra 1 needed to take place within the first three weeks of school.  If this identification is not made quickly such transfers were usually unsuccessful.  Consequently, placement in Part 1 regardless of a person’s potential put their futures in jeopardy.  These students would not only be one additional year behind their peers, they were going to receive an inferior math foundation upon which to build.   This placement was far too important to be determined solely by one’s performance in seventh and eighth grade math.

Building a New Model  

I solicited the assistance of the Coordinator to try to find a way to change the system.  Another department chair from a neighboring school joined us in the quest.   Many meetings were to follow.   We created a blueprint for our new program and then consulted teachers, assistant principals, principals and district leaders for their input.  A plan was finalized.  At the beginning of the year students designated for either Algebra 1 or Part 1 were all placed into Algebra 1.  Six weeks into the second half of the school year, everyone who was failing the course was reclassified as Part 1 students with a modified grading scale that reflected a commensurate grade for their work in terms of this less demanding course.  (For example, an average of 48—normally well below passing—would translate into a “B” for the Part 1 credit).  This procedure was explained to the students and parents before the year began.  The teacher nightmare referred to by Riddile—a disconsolate student sitting in a room during the spring with no hope of receiving a passing grade—had virtually disappeared.  Under this system in March nearly every student in these classes had a passing grade either in Algebra 1 or Part 1.  Plus all students had been exposed to a genuine Algebra 1 course.  One other change that was unique to our school was the creation of Algebra 1 Part 2 classes for the students who received Part 1 credit.  As opposed to placing these individuals into a regular Algebra 1, this separate course allowed teachers to emphasize the second half of the Algebra 1 curriculum.  

Better But Not Best

During the next three years, while the academic results at my school were quite good, the teachers found it increasingly difficult to conduct what were basically two different classes in the same room.  At the other school the chair had transferred and the program was soon phased out.  We chose a much different approach.  If the problem was the very disparate academic levels, why not actually move the students into different classes?  

Getting Everyone On Board

The discussion of this significant modification began with the math teachers.  At a department meeting the possibility of creating separate Part 1 and Algebra 1 classes at mid-year was introduced.  For the teachers the disadvantages were numerous.  Such changes could very easily result in additional preparations for many.  The curriculum coverage and pacing in every Algebra 1 class would have to become identical.  In addition, there could be issues concerning who should teach which level of classes.  Finally, splitting the students would basically create all new classes in both Algebra 1 and Part 1 that would require teachers to reestablish classroom management rules and philosophies.  For the students the positives were simple.  The ones who remained in Algebra 1 would see a rapid acceleration in the presentation of the curriculum.  For the Part 1 participants, they would have an opportunity to learn the material in the first half of Algebra 1 for a second time.  Analysis over several years of student performance had determined that the area of greatest difficulty was the second quarter material.  Consequently in this “do-over”, that portion of the curriculum would receive a greater amount of class time.  

After a lengthy discussion a vote was taken.  It was unanimously in favor.  This result was not surprising.  The math department was a special group of people.  Two of the teachers were former Peace Corps workers and the majority of the others were of a similar mindset.  For a school to succeed with the highest free and reduced lunch rate and the most ELL students in the district would require nothing less.  

Next up was the director of guidance.  A former member of the Peace Corps herself, her team would be confronted with major problems created by this plan.  There would be massive schedule changes, numerous consultations with parents, and many revisions to student transcripts.  For non-math people the delineation between the various levels of Algebra 1 could become quite confusing.   But without hesitation her response was affirmative.  If this is what is best for the students, she told me, then we will find a way to make it work.  Her level of commitment never wavered over the next few years despite the dramatically increased workload for the guidance staff.  Her actions were crucial to the ongoing success of the program.

The administrative team was equally supportive.  The state testing had begun and for many of our students these barrier exams were proving to be very challenging.   Whatever sacrifices the adults needed to make were going to be made.

After the first year I convened the math department once again to discuss the program.  The initial expectations of the plan, both good and bad, were close to what had been anticipated.  Scores on the state exams were improved (the pass rate rose from 32% to 39%), but the perceived negatives for the teachers did occur—more class preps, restarting classes, etc.  We openly discussed the pros and cons.  In order to avoid any sense of pressure, after the meeting I conducted a secret ballot vote on whether to continue.   The vote to retain the plan was unanimous.  With experience the program became more and more efficient.  In the master schedule Algebra 1 classes were bunched into periods to allow student changes to occur without disrupting other classes.  The decision on placement was moved two weeks earlier so as not to interfere with semester grading.  And most importantly, the students’ scores soared.

The bottom line is clear—implementing dramatic change takes time, communication and commitment.  The Algebra Project illustrated the need for all of those ingredients.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:05 PM | Permalink

According to a just released national survey, teachers want supportive leadership more than anything else. In fact, by a wide margin, teachers indicated that supportive leadership was more important than higher salaries and pay for performance.

The survey of 40,000 teachers was sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in collaboration with Scholastic, Inc. "We wanted to put teachers' voices front and center in the debate around education reform," said Vicki Phillips, the Gates Foundation's education director. "Teachers are on the front line of this work every day ... it doesn't make sense not to be talking to teachers."

What do teachers want?

- Supportive leadership (68%) more than higher salaries (45%)

- Digital media more than textbooks

- Evaluations based on how much students learn more than on principal evaluations. Only 22% believe that principal evaluations accurately represent their work.

- Salaries more than performance pay.

- The current school year over a longer school day and year. Only 36% favor extending the school year.

Additional findings of the survey include:

- 97% believe that setting high expectations is essential in raising student achievement

- 8% indicated that performance pay was essential.

- 71% believe that monetary rewards will have little or no impact on student achievement

- Also high on the list of essentials were relevant professional development, clean and safe working conditions, time to collaborate, and access to high-quality curriculum.

Conclusions

School leadership is essential to establishing a school climate in which teachers can teach and students can learn. As far as teachers are concerned, the principal is literally the “cork in the bottle.” The principal either makes things happen or prevents them from happening.

If schools want great teachers, they are going to have to have great leaders to support them.

All the money spent on improving teacher training will go for naught if we don’t fund principal development.

It is interesting to note that none of the things that teachers want most--respect, support, clean, safe, and orderly schools—cost anything. The most important things in school really are free. Money cannot buy a culture. Nor, can money buy relationships, trust, or support. School culture is not for sale!

Teachers know what they want, and when they don’t get it, they vote with their feet. They leave the school or they leave the profession. Teachers will simply not work in a school that is not teacher-friendly, and why should they?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:25 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer

Among the myriad of problems facing public education, one of the most disruptive is the stunning exodus of new teachers within the first few years of employment.  Many studies indicate that at least a third of all educators give up the profession within the first three years and more than half within five.  These losses represent a continuing drain on the competency level of a school’s staff and a remedy needs to be found to stop these losses.  There are a number of ways to alleviate this ongoing dilemma representing varying degrees of both cost and success. 

The first proposal does not cost any money but could result in a few bruised feelings among the more senior staff members in a building as well as some consternation among some of the more “traditional” administrators. It requires a strong commitment at all levels to ensure that new teachers are given the best possible opportunity to grow into seasoned veterans.  Some old-fashioned thinking may have to be readjusted and a small amount of buy-in will be required among the staff.  But the cost is small when compared to the potential upside for the department and school.

Closing the Deal

In order to develop great veteran teachers one must begin with high-potential new ones.   In June 2006 I had three math vacancies to fill for the upcoming school year.  As was my custom when hiring new teachers, I carefully studied the resumes of the county’s forty early math hires. I found seven that interested me and set up interviews.

When meeting with prospective math teachers I always tell them that this interview is a two-way process; they should be asking as many questions of us as we are of them.  We all must decide whether this particular school and candidate have the potential of being a productive combination.  This discussion does not revolve around good and bad, adequate or inadequate.  The simple fact that needs to be addressed is that schools have a personality just like individuals and some candidates are better suited to one rather than another.   I also tell them that they have more control of the process than they realize.  For highly qualified individuals multiple offers will be forthcoming and they will have choices.   In addition to this honest transparency about their options, I discuss their future at my school.  We talk about how we put together a career path for all of our new teachers. We will look at their first five years and plan what type of teaching schedule will best serve their long-term goals.

And finally I advise them to ask every potential employer three questions (my answers are in parenthesis):

 - How many class preps will I have?  (at most two)

 - Will I have my own classroom? (yes)

 - Will the administrative team be supportive?  (You are working in one of the most creative, collaborative and supportive environments possible.  We will do everything possible to produce a five-year plan to ensure that your career will follow the exact course you envision.)

After the top three “blue-chippers” were ascertained, job offers went out and fingers were crossed.  In a county with twenty-six high schools the competition for math teachers is fierce.  It is not hyperbole to say that a talented prospect can be offered positions at ten or more schools.  But one by one my three top picks said yes.  They all acknowledged they had many offers from which to choose, but decided to come with us.  I asked each one why she had made her decision.   Though none of them had ever met, they all had similar responses.  They liked the idea that we were open and honest about the process and most of all they liked the concept of a “plan” for their career.

There is a fascinating back-story here.  Another much more upscale school in the county offered jobs to the same three women.  When the assistant principal in charge of hiring math teachers discovered that his school had been rejected by all three in favor of our far less affluent location he responded angrily.  In a phone call to the school he demanded to know “What is it you are giving away over there?”  If I had spoken to him I would have told him our “tricky” lure was the combination of honesty and the promise of a future.           

Making Good on a Promise

History bears out that what occurred in these interviews was not a high-pressure sales pitch but rather a system we had been using for years.  Long ago I had concluded that the job of a new teacher was difficult enough without the added burden of moving from room to room.  Consequently, none of these teachers were placed in such a position.   (Ironically, I used one of their classrooms as part of my itinerant day)  One of the teachers was given a schedule of one regular and two double block Algebra 2 classes.  This assignment offered several advantages—while teaching five classes, she basically had only one preparation and three sets of students.  The slower paced double block (they met every day instead of every other day) meant she had more time to teach a concept and if there were problems they could be readdressed the next day in a more relaxed manner. Her second year schedule was exactly the same thus allowing her to perfect and refine her Algebra 2 lesson plans.  It was time to begin slowly expanding her career in her next teaching assignment.  That year her regular Algebra 2 was replaced with an Advanced Placement Pre-calculus.  This year she has two AP sections.  The second teacher had a parallel course.  She taught one regular and two double-block geometry for two of her first three years and in the third replaced the regular with a Trig / Math Analysis.  She is now working with the Honors Geometry program as well.  The third member of the group had taught Algebra 1 in summer school prior to coming to our school.  Consequently, she was assigned one Algebra 2 and four Algebra 1 classes.  The next year she had an identical schedule and the third and fourth she taught Algebra 1 and two sections of AP Calculus.  Now well into their fourth years, these talented educators give no thought to quitting.  To the contrary they now proudly tell me about their classroom success and of their high level of influence in the seventeen-member department.  One related to me in a letter “Just like you told us when you retired; the three of us are taking over!”  She was being facetious but not inaccurate.

Finding the Answer in Your Own Backyard

To cultivate good new teachers many of the “perks” normally reserved for more senior teachers must be reconsidered.  When assigning class schedules, lack of experience should be a consideration not a license to take advantage.  All too often new hires are given the “leftovers” of the master schedule, a frighteningly eclectic combination of the classes that no one else wanted.  If classrooms are in short demand the least experienced person is soon wheeling all of their newly created worksheets, supplies and notes on a cart during the already frantic exchange of classes.   Such treatment is precisely why the statistics on new teachers are so depressing. 

Perhaps the best model for how to develop and retain teachers can be found in a very surprising location—the high school classroom.  When a new student enters a class several weeks into the year what is the typical treatment accorded to them?  Well, let’s see, they are given additional individualized attention at first to make sure they can catch up with the rest of the students.  Extra time is allowed for them to understand the curriculum. They are not expected to immediately work at the same level as their more experienced classmates.   Often another student is asked to aid or mentor them through the initial process.  And in many cases previous material is streamlined and simplified to ensure that knowledge acquisition is accelerated as quickly as possible.

Could such a novel approach work with another group of individuals in the same building?

Next:  Two more plans, one a little bit pricey, the other downright expensive

but both really good.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As earlier reported, Central Falls, Rhode Island, Superintendent, Frances Gallo, had pinks slips placed in the mailboxes of all 74 of the high school’s teachers. According to the news report, Central Fall High School is one of the poorest performing schools in the state, with a less than 50 percent graduation rate. “Supt. Gallo said the teachers would not agree on a plan to fix the struggling school that included a longer school day and tutoring before and after school.” The report indicates that the teachers wanted to be compensated for working extra duties.

The Rest of the Story

In an announcement released today, Rhode Island Education Commissioner, Deborah A. Gist, has given Central Falls Superintendent, Frances Gallo, 120 days to develop a plan to improve Central Falls High School. According to the press release, last week, Gallo submitted a proposal to use the “turnaround” model as the basis for reform of the high school. The “turnaround” model requires replacement of the principal and at least 50 percent of the staff, “a new governance structure, better use of data, expanded learning time, and social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports for students.”

The press release indicated “Following procedures from the U.S. Department of Education, last month the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (RIDE) identified Central Falls High School and five schools in Providence as the persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state. Commissioner Gist ordered Providence and Central Falls to convene an advisory group of community stakeholders and to select for each school one of the four federal models for school reform: turnaround, school closure, restart, or transformation.”

My thoughts:

- Is this the first of many school “terminations” that we will be reading about in the coming months?

- On the surface, it appears much easier to simply use the “termination” or is it the “turnaround” model.

- It is much easier to “terminate” a school that to actually work with the staff to “turnaround” the school. To “turnaround” a school you actually have to know what you are doing. To “terminate” a school, all you need to know how to do is distribute pink slips, and any bureaucrat can do that.

- Instead of “terminating” the school, why not just skip to the good part? Why not give the school the resources that they actually need in order to raise student achievement.

- The only thing that this approach to school improvement does is to single out the poorest schools.

- Not only did 74 teachers get pink slipped, but so did the principal.

- I wonder, where is Central Falls going to find 74 teachers?

- Given the way the terminations were delivered, what teacher or prospective principal would apply to work in that district? Would you advise your son or daughter to apply for a teaching job in that district?

Our school was called by National Geographic Magazine “the most diverse school in America.” We had high poverty and high student mobility. Two-thirds of our students were second language learners (ELL). We didn’t have the highest test scores, but when we used a regression analysis comparing achievement on state exit exams to poverty in our twenty-six high school district, our school was the only outlier. We didn’t have the highest scores, but we were doing the best job with the students we had. I always said that I could take our entire staff and improve even the wealthiest school in the district, but the teachers from the wealthiest school wouldn’t last a day in our school.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer

There is an old saying in baseball when the manager of an underachieving team is fired—“It wasn’t necessarily his fault, but we couldn’t fire the whole team”.  Apparently that is not the case in Central Falls, Rhode Island.  As related in a recent news article, http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/central-falls-supt.-wants-all-74-high-school-teachers-fired, the Superintendent of Central Falls Frances Gallo has decided to fire every teacher in the school as a result of poor graduation rates and some contentious labor negotiations. 

When I first read about this case I must admit I was temporarily at a loss for words.  My first thoughts were laced with disbelief.   If someone with a sore toe went to a surgeon with a philosophy similar to Gallo, they could lose their entire leg.  Also, as a former math teacher I have to share the following mathematical fact—the likelihood that 74 out of 74 teachers are bad is more than remote.  It is numerically astounding.

On a More Realistic Note

After reading Mel Riddile’s response to the mass firings, http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference/2010/02/fire_them_all.html, I think I have regained my verbal balance.  I concur with him on the need to treat all people with respect and dignity if you want to attain any level of success.  Likewise, every staff contains people of great talent.  But let me share a few thoughts from the teacher perspective.

One critical point needs to be made from the outset.  The path taken by Ms. Gallo, whether she realizes it or not, was the easy way out of a bad situation but not the solution to a real and important problem. While the adults are sorting out who to fire, who to picket and who to blame, more than half of the adolescents in the building will still not graduate from high school. The belief that the next seventy-four teachers will automatically be significantly better than the current staff is naïve at best.  What is far more likely is that the replacement troops will have no more success than their predecessors.  And while Ms. Gallo’s ego may be assuaged the ultimate losers, again, will be the students.

The tough choice would have been to take the time and energy necessary to discover the root causes of the problems at the school.  Were the difficulties grounded in demographics, philosophy, hiring practices, staff development plans, counseling, etc.?  At what points in the system was leadership breaking down?  The answers to such questions would require research and hard work but they would ultimately lead to a path toward improvement.

In my forty years as a math teacher including twenty-six as department chair, I worked with a significant number of colleagues who struggled in the classroom.  But the vast majority of these individuals wanted to be good teachers.  Their problem was that they did not possess all of the tools to ensure success.  The job of school leaders at all levels is to provide those instruments.  System leaders must give principals the independence to recognize the unique qualities of their individual schools and then craft a working plan to best reach the needs of their community.  School leaders must determine which staff members have the vision, teaching skills and management qualities to assist others to improve.  Teacher leaders must examine the strengths and weaknesses of the department members and find ways to maximize each teacher’s best talents while minimizing their deficits.  The task of educating is no different from any other endeavor.

No one is born with the specific skill set to instantly become successful.  Good role models, cohesive improvement plans, hard work and dedication will in the vast majority of cases result in better teaching.

The damage caused by the series of events in Central Falls will not be easily repaired.  As Riddle said one of the key ingredients in a successful school is mutual respect and commitment.  How can a school expect to attract teachers with those attributes after a mass firing such as the one in Rhode Island? How could anyone possibly convince them that their best choice would be   to work at a school that fired everyone in the building?   The word “fire” is dangerous in both a crowded movie theater and in education.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:36 PM | Permalink

Central Falls, Rhode Island, Superintendent, Frances Gallo, had pinks slips placed in the mailboxes of all 74 of the high school’s teachers. According to the report, Central Fall High School is one of the poorest performing schools in the state, with a less than 50 percent graduation rate. “Supt. Gallo said the teachers would not agree on a plan to fix the struggling school that included a longer school day and tutoring before and after school.” The report indicates that the teachers wanted to be compensated for working extra duties.

Reactions:

Shine Those Diamonds - During a visit to our school several years ago, I was asked by a high-ranking U.S. Department of Education official, “Did you have to purge the staff?” I responded with a question, “Have you ever read Acres of Diamonds?” A big smile suddenly appeared on his face. It turns out that he had. Our school improvement efforts were led by a core group of dedicated, highly skilled teacher leaders all of whom had worked 15 or more years in the school. My job as principal was to find the diamonds and let them shine. In other words, I had to set teachers and their students up for success.

Control or Cooperation – In order to raise the achievement of each and every student, we need everyone working together taking ownership of the problems as well as the solutions. After this mass termination, I wonder how anyone will be able to gain the trust of the staff. As I indicated in a previous post, the essential question that every school leader and classroom leader must ask is “Do I want control or cooperation?” The answer to that question creates an intention that drives all future behavior. A school leader or classroom leader who seeks cooperation will think and behave much differently than one who seeks control. I contend that, if one has cooperation, control is unnecessary. However, it is the illusion of control or the fear of losing control that drives many leaders to engage in the kind of close-minded, top-down styles of interacting that erode relationships, stifle dialogue, and connote a lack of respect. Are you willing to give up a little control in order to get more cooperation? Are you willing to spend more time making decisions in order to make better decisions? Are you okay with not knowing all the answers? Are you willing to ask more questions?

The right thing, the right way, for the right reason – Schools become high-performing because they treat other peoples’ children the way that they would want their own children treated. In that same vein, we must treat our teachers the same way that we would want our wives or husbands treated if they were teaching at our school. My wife taught for 30 years and I can tell you that her classroom perspective kept me grounded. I certainly would not want her to receive a pink slip in her mailbox.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:48 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Stuart Singer

My discussion of the role of the department chair brought forth some interesting and intriguing responses.  While many focused on the specific proposals, a number of others saw it as an opportunity to discuss the difficulty of creating a positive, productive and trusting relationship between the administrative team and the teaching staff.  More importantly, there was a general consensus that a strong “we vs. they” mentality exists in many schools and when allowed to fester it can seriously impair the morale and effectiveness of a building.

The perceived source of this tension was surprising.  One might think that the most significant cause of such strife would be teacher evaluations.  Any time one person is responsible for assessing the performance of another, a “boss- employee” mindset can easily form.  Surprisingly, based on the input I have received, this assessment is not considered the main area of friction between the administration and staff.  While there are stories worthy of folklore concerning this process, those cases tend to involve only the individual participants rather than the school at large.  School-wide problems, it appears, revolve around disagreement as to roles of the administrative team and the faculty concerning the establishment of curriculum policy and the educational environment in a school.

In This Corner

The job of an assistant principal is inherently difficult.  In addition to dealing with issues relating to student discipline, buses, parental complaints, bell schedules, field trips and the like, this position can become even more challenging when the responsibility of teacher evaluations is added.   The school curriculum is an ever-changing landscape of barrier exams and new programs to evaluate.

And in This Corner

The job of the classroom teacher is inherently difficult.  In addition to the usual responsibilities of grading papers, creating materials, parent conferences, after-school help, extra-curricular responsibilities and the like, this job has become even more challenging because of the ever changing role of the classroom educator.  The curriculum is in a constant state of flux as new initiatives are continually being implemented and the technology demands never stand still.  

When Worlds Collide

(The following views are from the perspective of the classroom teacher.  Those with other perspectives are encouraged to offer theirs.)

While there are plenty of potential interpersonal potholes in the path of any assistant principal, the issues which are most problematic deal with constructing educational policy and the professional roles of teachers and administrators.  During my twenty-six years as a math chair, the department was supervised by six different APs.   Their educational experiences were highly diverse and many were outstanding but they all shared one commonality—none had ever taught math.  These seemingly inappropriate assignments were neither unique nor avoidable.  When a staff of three or four assistant principals must supervise a dozen different and very distinct curricula the probability that they will be in charge of a subject they had taught is remote.  With these circumstances in mind, it is not difficult to visualize potential conflicts arising if this individual is empowered to make decisions directly involving curriculum policy.  It is even more potentially combustible if these choices are in direct opposition to the opinions of the department chair or classroom teacher.

One reader wrote:

“I was in a meeting where a question was asked as to the role of the department chair.  The response was ‘Their responsibility is to carry out the policies of the administrative team.’ When pressed further it was clearly stated that policy making was exclusively the domain of the administrative team.”

It is not surprising that this approach could be a concern for a classroom teacher whose experience in teaching a specific curriculum far exceeds the experience of the person making such a statement.

Another source of friction is the belief held by many teachers that any time a student struggles in their class the responsibility for this failure is placed squarely on the instructor.  The countless number of conferences, documentation and questions that are triggered by student failure often point in the direction of the “offending” teacher.  And in most cases the person questioning the competence of the teacher is the assistant principal.  This situation led to another response:

“I firmly believe that administrators should teach classes occasionally.  I don’t mean just visiting a class; I mean a whole semester or year. As soon as somebody leaves the classroom, they change.  The argument is that now they see the other side.  I’m sure there is another side, but that doesn’t mean the teaching side disappears.”

A Successful School is Flat

The world of Thomas Friedman is flat, a place where the actions of every country affects every other.  In order for an educational institution to be high functioning it must be constructed in a very similar manner.  Student success is the ultimate measure of a school.  And the highest levels of accomplishment only occur when every human cog in the machinery of a building is working to its maximum capacity and in concert with everyone else.  Without the best efforts of the teaching, clerical, custodial, administrative, security and counseling staffs diminished results are inevitable.  If one of these groups fails to meet its obligations, the negative ripples spread throughout all others.  Consequently any instance of miscommunication, mistrust or incompetence must be avoided.  The working relationship between the administrators and teachers must be founded on mutual respect, appreciation of the talents that each possess and the realization that their relationship is one of a collaborative and constantly evolving partnership.   Equally important is the understanding that none of these attributes is intrinsic to a title or position.  They must be earned and re-earned regularly.

Communication Has to Start at the Top

So how can a school create a cohesive, positive working relationship between the administrative and teaching staffs?   The administrative/faculty interaction should be one of the highest priorities of principals.  Their vision of this relationship must be clearly stated, contain no ambivalence, and be repeated often both in public and private.  It should be shared with the teachers, the administrators and then to everyone collectively.  The dialogue should be both verbal and written to ensure that there is no possibility of misinterpretations, misconceptions or secret agendas.  Fully informed individuals can best manage their own expectations and are far less likely to be disappointed or confused.

Ensuring the academic success of every student is the ultimate responsibility of a school principal.  Creating a learning environment where there is a strong sense of respect and a clear understanding of individual responsibilities among the staff rest squarely on the building’s top administrator.  The buck and this policy stop at that office door.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:26 PM | Permalink

by Mel Riddile

When you are a “singleton”--the only one or one of a few in a particular position in a school, like principals, assistant principals, literacy coaches, technology integration specialists, or guidance directors--school staff and community members either don’t understand or they misunderstand what it is that you do with your time. I know for a fact that only my administrative assistant had any idea how I spent my time. She was always encouraging me to eat lunch or to take a break. I learned that even assistant principals don’t know what principals do. I remember one of my former assistant principals saying to me after six months as a principal, “I always thought that you just sat in your office and talked on the phone. In twenty-five years, I have never worked so hard. I am exhausted when I go home at night. The stress is unbelievable.”

As a principal, I always made an effort to inform staff about what other “singletons,” like my literacy coaches or assistant principals, did all day long. In order to promote better understanding, I even encouraged shadowing. In fact, I found out that shadowing is a great way to expose potential administrators to the work that we do. One of my favorite teachers of all time, who was an outspoken critic of administrators, completely changed her attitude after I gave her the opportunity to work with me when I was an assistant principal. One day after she had given me a friendly tongue-lashing, I said to her, “Why don’t you work with me a few days a week. I could use the help.” First, she found out that she enjoyed the work. Secondly, instead of a critic, she became a vocal supporter and an excellent source of feedback. In fact, I just received and invitation to her retirement party. By the way, she has spent the last ten years of her career as an assistant principal, and a very good one I might add.

Bottom Line: Let your staff know what you do. Make an effort to let the staff know what the “singletons” in your school do. Often people are saying “no” when they really mean “I don’t know.”

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

An editorial in the Washington Post (Sunday, July 12) admonished the higher education establishment, telling them “it’s time for college administrators to stop passing the buck to the drinking age and start taking their in loco parentis role more seriously.” The Post piece cited a recent study in the Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, which found that, as the drinking age had increased, binge drinking had decreased everywhere except on college campuses. The editorial pointed out that “where the drinking age is enforced, harmful drinking behaviors have been in overall decline.” In November of 2008, I spoke at the National Drinking Age Debate held at Manhattanville College. The debate was prompted by the Amethyst Letter, which was signed last year by more that 100 college presidents. College presidents argue that young people are going to drink anyway. Why make it a crime? I was a school administrator prior to the national movement to a higher drinking age. For those of you who can’t remember, I can tell you that alcohol on high school campuses was a big problem. Because we had our 18 year-olds giving alcohol to 14 year-olds, we had alcohol-related incidents at almost every school event. We occasionally had alcohol-related problems during the school day. Many schools cancelled or severely limited dances and other events. We had frequent traffic accidents and numerous fatalities. What was school life like for me when the drinking age was raised to 21? Even though we had many more older students, we had few alcohol-related incidents at evening events. In fact, I can’t remember the last school day alcohol-related incident. Traffic accidents and fatalities went way down. The bottom line on this issue is that college presidents don’t want to deal with underage drinking and fake IDs. Their solution is to pass the problem to high school administrators and to younger, more vulnerable teenagers. Explain to me how this solves anything. The Post sums it all up. “Instead of complaining about the drinking age, they (college presidents) should try to enforce it.”

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:15 PM | Permalink