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

Students want and need interaction with peers, which has been shown to improve learning. When students work in groups, what and how much they learn is directly related to the effectiveness of the interaction with their peers.

Some groups are naturally more productive than others. While some peer groups seem to interact naturally, others "struggle to maintain a balance of participation, leadership, under-standing, and encouragement."

The act of placing students in groups is not in itself an effective instructional strategy. The key is what happens in the groups.

Effective groups are characterized by:

• Questioning
• Explanations using evidence
• Elaboration
• Reflection
• Role Identification (Leader, Time Keeper, Scribe...)

The fact that a course is being conducted online does not alter the needs of the students. The principles of effective group instruction and support apply to both live and online instruction.

The Bottom Line

1. Skilled teachers take the time to instruct students not only in the cognitive skills necessary to learn the subject matter, but also in the social skills they need to work effectively and collaboratively in a team.
2. Students should only be held accountable for what we teach them, and that includes the skills needed to work effectively in groups.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:55 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

All Diets Work

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

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

Chaos Increases Turnover

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

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

Churning Leads to Confusion

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

The Right Way

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

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

Next: School Improvement: What or How?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:45 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:12 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Mel Riddile recently lamented the failure of educators to embrace the use of technology.  His angst was ignited by a comment in an article published in the New York Times.

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

Dr. Riddile agrees that technology is not having the intended impact in education but for very different reasons.

“Because we are so used to "making do" with less, we are actually doing technology integration a disservice by allowing people like Matt Richtel to believe that we have fully implemented technology in our schools when, in actuality, scarce resources are forcing most schools to tinker around the edges giving lip service to technology integration without the tools needed to make it happen school wide.”

His final point is that items that are designed to augment classroom instruction fall into one of three categories:  novelty, nicety or necessity.   The argument is simple—until technology becomes a necessity in the daily activities of a course, it will never reach its full potential. 

An example of a "necessity"

As a math teacher from 1968 until 2008 I was witness to the evolution of the real “new math”.  Not that stuff that was talked about in the run-up to the Apollo Space Program.  I am talking about the introduction of the graphing calculator into the high school classroom.   It began as a trickle when a few Casio and Texas Instruments products began to appear in the classroom.  But as the capabilities of these hand-held devices became clearly evident, math educators began to take notice.  More than fifteen years ago Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia decided to invest millions of dollars to ensure that every Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 student in the district had 24/7 access to a TI-83 during the entire school year. 

Weighing priorities

The use of any technology has downsides.  “Spell Check” has created a nation of poor spellers.  Doctors are no longer the only folks with illegible handwriting.  Automatic dialing has left most of us helpless when trying to remember a phone number in an emergency.  And don’t get me started on passwords.  So not surprisingly the influx of graphing calculators met significant resistance.   They quickly diminished the ability of students to mentally do fundamental calculations.  Many parents and teachers were appalled.  The comment “We are turning out a generation of math illiterates” was spoken in a variety of forms.  But the reality was just the opposite.  Instead of producing students who could do simple arithmetic in their heads, we were now capable of creating mathematicians. 

In my own classroom I was observing the profound difference such technology could make.  Instead of spending three weeks learning how to find a logarithm, students were spending that time using logarithms to solve complex math problems.  Graphs that would require a class period to create were now instantly available to analyze and utilize.  Topics once considered too complex to be discussed were now routine work.   The entire subject matter had been revitalized.  Real world problems were not only being solved they were being demonstrated on a screen.  For years I had been envious of the power of the lab experiment in Science classrooms; that was no longer the case.  Students in my classroom were launching rockets, discussing world population growth and determining the probability of winning the lottery without ever leaving their seats. 

Questions, questions, questions

The implementation of any technology always raises concerns.  For many parents the fear of the calculator was that it would somehow allow students to do well without working hard—in essence level the playing field for unmotivated students.  Actually, the converse was true.  Virtually every technology favors the individual who knows what they are doing.  The phrase “garbage in, garbage out” is appropriate in this conversation.  I would explain this situation to students and parents by saying, “A calculator is really quite stupid.  It will do whatever you tell it to do.  It will never tap you on the shoulder and say, ‘Are you really sure you want to input that?’”  But I could assure them that in the right hands it could perform mathematical magic.   

After a few years I became downright strident in my support.  When unenthused parents would ask “But what happens when the batteries die in the calculator?” I would answer “Buy new batteries.”

Use it or lose it

In the typical math class at my school the graphing calculator became a critical part of the daily lesson.  It was utilized to intensify the curriculum, bring the real world into the classroom and produce accurate and meaningful work.  By introducing 21stcentury technology into math, the course became alive and intriguing for 21st century students.  Regardless of the price tag it was an educational bargain.  And more importantly, it had, in the words of Mel Riddile, become a necessity.   The incorporation of the graphing calculator in math should serve as a role model for the rest of school-based technology.   

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:42 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

On August 31 “NBC Nightly News” Brian Williams moved into a commercial break with a tease of his next segment.  “As more and more school districts are moving to a four-day week, parents are asking, ‘What are we supposed to do with our kids on that extra day?’.”  While enduring two minutes of upbeat advertising for medications to lessen the impact of a variety of hideous diseases, I was extremely upset.  “Good grief, the school week is being cut to four days and the number one parental concern is daycare,” I thought to myself.

When the actual story unfolded it quickly became apparent that it would exceed my worst fears.   The actual focus of the piece was a series of comments by educators praising the benefits of the abbreviated school week.  A principal at an Oregon high school explained that due to budget problems the district had moved to four longer days of school in lieu of the traditional five-day week.   He was quick to point out that the students would be in school the same number of hours and not to fear that any taxpayer money was being wasted teachers were required to come to work on Fridays to do planning.  He then began to explain how student performance was improving under the new plan.  “It’s a paradox, less is more, less is more for these kids’ learning.”  The piece continued with several more references to how this seemingly contradictory set of circumstances was a positive for the students in the system.   In another school system preparing to move to the shortened week, an educational leader explained that this change was not about saving money but rather improving education.

A defiance of logic and reason

Perhaps these folks have never heard of the “Hawthorne Effect” where individuals tend to improve their immediate performances as the result of increased attention or change whether it is positive or negative.   Arguing that the addition of another day away from school will result in improved academic performance is ignoring the fundamentals.  Assuming that these high schools are on block scheduling (if not imagine an adolescent taking seven classes every day over a ten-hour period) the four-day week would have the typical student taking a math course on Monday and Wednesday and then setting that curriculum aside until five days later on the next Monday.  Throw in a holiday and there will be nearly a week between classes.  The same problems would exist for any discipline requiring retention of skills such as foreign language or music.

There would be equal problems for after school activities.  Picture trying to whip a marching band into shape after a school day that has lasted from 7:30 in the morning until 5:30 that evening?  Would dinner be served before or after rehearsal?

Research shows that human beings have limited attention spans.  For teenagers those numbers can usually be cut in half.  Going back to that class schedule, how academically effective would an extra 25 minutes be in those 115-minute blocks?  And who would want to be teaching osmosis or how a bill becomes a law in hours nine and ten of that elongated school day?

Finally, the principal in the story announced that attendance at his school had also improved.  That can happen when you reduce the number of days by 20%.

The much bigger question

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the financial circumstances facing states and communities are going to improve in the near future.  More and more difficult budget decisions are going to be required.  If the past is any indication, much of that burden will be placed on education.  Such a course of action is wrong; making arguments that it will make learning better is worse.  The current unemployment numbers reveal the folly of this approach.  The correlation between employment and education is clear.  Individuals without a high school diploma are three times as likely to be jobless than someone with a degree.  The core problem in this country is not a lack of work; it is a lack of appropriately trained workers.

Taking the wrong path

To perfect one’s serve in tennis which approach would be better—practicing one hour a day, seven days a week or just hit the ball for seven hours on Monday and take the next six days off?   The better path is obvious.  Those folks in Oregon and the more than 100 other communities that have moved to a four-day week seem to believe that the truncated school week is a model for improving their schools.  It is not.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:15 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

Novelty, Nicety, or Necessity?

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

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

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

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

Learning Is a 24/7 Process

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

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

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

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

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

All means all, not most!

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

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

Next: Is BYOD the answer?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:46 PM | Permalink

A late school start aimed at tourism revenue undermines the efforts of college-bound students and parents.

After a friend of mine personally witnessed the horrific traffic in the Washington, D.C. area, he said, "the people here must have a really high tolerance for this craziness."

Recent articles in area papers reminded me of three major barriers to college readiness and admission. Late school openings, university admission policies for out-of-state and foreign students, and the misuse of honors courses represent barriers that sabotage years of work and effort on the parts of college-bound students and their parents. My friend was correct. These people must have a high tolerance.

Barrier #1: Late School Starts

Like many other areas of the country whose population consists of a high percentage of college graduates, the D.C. area, with several of the wealthiest large counties in the nation, demands that its schools and school systems prepare students for admission to the most competitive colleges and universities, particularly those in-state schools with lower tuition rates. In fact, test prep programs begin in elementary school preparing students for admission to the regions elite public magnet high school for the gifted, Thomas Jefferson. It is widely believed that admission to Jefferson guarantees admission to the State's most competitive and highly regarded university, The University of Virginia (UVA).

The reality is that attendance at Jefferson may actually reduce the chances of being admitted to Virginia, because the school's admission policies and desire for a diverse student body will not permit admission of a large number of students from the same high school. Actually, students who take a rigorous course of studies, which includes Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) courses, at any of the area's surrounding high schools and who achieve at high levels probably have a statistically better chance of admission to UVA than do the "elite" Jefferson students.

Parents operate under the assumption that taking a heavy dose of Advanced Placement or IB courses and obtaining a passing score on the exams translates into earning college credits, which not only increases the chances of college admission but also ensures a significant cost savings, because the students will graduate sooner.

The problem is that Virginia's late school opening date makes it much more difficult to earn better scores on AP and IB exams. Virginia students are placed at a distinct disadvantage by a State law, called the "Kings Dominion law", which was passed in 1986 to protect the tourism industry. The law prohibits schools from starting before Labor Day. Because both AP and IB exams are administered beginning in the first full week of May, Virginia students have two weeks less instruction and preparation than many of their counterparts around the country, most of whom begin school in the third week of August. Virginia students start behind and the teachers spend the entire school year trying to catch them up.

Officials in Loudon County (VA), the nations' wealthiest large county, get it.  According to a Washington Post article, "Loudon (County) officials argued that starting in August would give students more time to learn what they need to know for Advanced Placement and state Standards of Learning exams, which are generally administered in May or June. “The more we can do to prepare our kids in advance of those tests, the better off they’ll be,” said School Board Chairman John Stevens (Potomac)."

On one hand Virginia has made a sizeable investment in a system of high stakes testing and accountability that is one of the most rigorous in the nation. On the other hand, Virginia law places its own students at a disadvantage on national and international assessments. According to the report, Virginia's position was succinctly expressed by "Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax). He said sending students back to school early would cut into Labor Day weekend’s substantial sales tax revenue, and he hasn’t heard a compelling argument for giving up those dollars."

Other Peoples' Kids

Virginia's late school start date undermines years of parental encouragement and involvement and puts students at a two-week disadvantage when it comes to AP and IB exams. Would any of us set up a system that places our own child two weeks behind before the school year even begins? I think not.

Next: Barrier #2: Admission policies at state universities

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:26 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

Scotomas

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

Flat World

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

A Good Day In IT Land

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

Over-Compliance

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

What you must know about content filtering

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

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

The Solution

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:44 AM | Permalink

Master teacher, Sherry Singer, taught Advanced Placement Biology for approximately fourteen years and then switched to International Baccalaureate (IB) Biology for another fourteen years. Sherry taught for much of her career in what National Geographic Magazine called "the most diverse high school in America." When I need an expert teacher's opinion, Sherry is one of my "go to" people. 

I was looking for a veteran teacher's take on the recent cheating scandals. So, I asked Sherry, "You have probably read about the cheating scandals in DC, Atlanta and elsewhere.
Were you concerned about cheating on IB Exams?  Here is why I am asking. It seems to me that cheating is more of a problem on inexpensive, easy-to-score, multiple-choice tests than it is on a well-constructed assessment that require students to write and explain their answers.

In her own words, here is Sherry's take on cheating and quality assessment:

"You are correct.  I was never worried about cheating in my IB classes.  My classroom tests were always at least 50% essay or data analysis.  These types of assessments are almost impossible to cheat on. 

The IB has clearly thought out ways of discouraging cheating on their end-of-course exams.  Dave, our IB Coordinator, would always recruit IB teachers to be invigilators during the exams.  But we could never invigilate exams in our own subjects.  So I could not have helped students with answers even if I wanted to!  Back packs, cell phones, etc. were left outside the testing area.  No one was allowed to talk after entering the testing area.  One of my favorite IB exam stories was one of my students became sick during the exam and actually threw up in the testing area.  One of the invigilators took him to the restroom got him cleaned up and he came back to the exam, finished the exam and received a score of 6 out of a possible 7.  IB makes students tough! (He is a cardiologist today.)"

The Bottom Line

If students can copy and text answers to each other, and, if teachers can erase incorrect responses, we should admit that these inexpensive tests with poorly constructed questions tell us very little about what students know and what they are able to do. Why are we wasting so much money going through the motions? Why not spend the money on quality assessments that are much better indicators of learning? Instead, we end up spending valuable education dollars on test security and on investigating and firing cheaters at the same time we are laying off teachers and increasing class sizes.

We know how to construct high-quality assessments that, in Sherry's words "are almost impossible to cheat on." How can state and district officials look at themselves in the mirror and rationalize and justify firing teachers and principals and closing schools on the basis of the cheapest assessments money can buy? Bad karma?

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

I am starting to feel like many educational leaders are approaching the instruction of math as if it were a game of “Jeopardy”.

            “Bill, it’s your turn to choose.”

            “Alex, I’d like to move to ‘Math Solutions’ for 200.”

            “Starting a new category, the answer is…‘8th grade Algebra’.  Bill, you buzzed in first.”

            “What is the solution for every math concern?”

            “That is correct”.

            “I’ll take ‘Math Solutions’ for 400”.

            “Continuing in the same category the answer is…‘8thgrade Algebra’.  Bill you’re first again.”

            “What should every student be required to take to improve math education?”

            “Correct again, you’re on a roll!”

            “Let’s take ‘Math Solutions’ for 600.”

            “Staying in the same category, the answer is…‘8th grade Algebra’.  Bill again.”

            “Uh, what, uh, what will guarantee admission for every student to any university in America?”

            “Right again, please continue…”

While this scene may seem hyperbolic or ludicrous, the reality is not too far behind.  The prevailing attitude in math education appears to be that the best solution is the 100% rule—academic policies must apply to “everyone”.   As Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger did it when he decreed that every student in his state must take Algebra 1 by the eighth grade.  My former school district took the same path five years ago when it announced that the goal of the system was to have all students take Algebra 1 prior to entering high school.  Similar sentiments have been voiced all over the country.  But as Mel Riddile points out in a recent post, a story from California demonstrates the potential pitfalls of such an approach.

A tale of two school districts

The Dailybreeze.com a site that covers stories in the Southern California area reports:

“The Manhattan Beach Unified School District boasts the third-highest test scores in the state of California. So it would be natural to assume that a relatively large share of its eighth-graders is on the accelerated track in mathematics. Conversely, the Lennox school district has the highest rate of poverty in the South Bay. One might assume that a disproportionate number of its eighth-graders take it slower in math.

“But the opposite is true.  In affluent Manhattan Beach, 44 percent of eighth- graders took algebra I or higher in 2009-10, the latest available data from the California Department of Education. The corresponding figure in Lennox was 94 percent.”

While it is surprising that the far wealthier of the two districts has the lower percentage of students enrolled in 8th grade Algebra 1, the outcomes are not.  In 2009-10 only 27% of the students in Lennox scored proficient on the state’s Algebra 1 end-of-course exam.  That translates into three of every four students in the accelerated math failing the test.   Meanwhile the scores for Manhattan Beach soared.  According to Tom Loveless, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institute, "If you're a student from a disadvantaged background - and are African-American or Hispanic - you are more likely to be placed in an algebra class in eighth grade than if you are a white suburban kid in an affluent district".  Such results are not isolated to California.  Three years ago Loveless conducted a study of eighth-grade students across the country.  Based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores he found that among the lowest 10% of students tested, one-third were enrolled in Algebra 1 at the time.

A better way to go

So if the Manhattan Beach Unified School District is not pushing all of its 8th graders into Algebra I, how are they achieving such high test scores?  More than 30% of the eighth-graders in these schools take Algebra 1 part 1.  They then proceed to Algebra 1 in the ninth grade and with a solid two-year foundation in the subject then move on to Geometry, Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus.  John Jackson, principal of Manhattan Beach Middle School, is unapologetic about his school’s percentage of Algebra 1 students and two-year approach to the course for a significant portion of the eighth grade. “Our job is to get them ready for high school, and that's what we do really well.”

And then there is the science

A recent article in the Washington Post discussed the neurological reasons that some students are not prepared for Algebra 1.   The author, Rob Coppock, has a unique set of qualifications—he taught middle school math after a career as a research scientist.  Now retired from education he saw first-hand the potential damage that pushing the wrong students could cause.

 “To oversimplify the neuroscience, the cortex, or outer layer of the brain, matures from back to front. Parts of the brain associated with more basic functions, such as motor and sensory functions, mature first, followed by areas involved in spatial orientation, speech and language development. Areas involved in attention, evaluation and motor coordination develop last.

“The problem is that the normal pace of development for some students means their brains are physiologically not capable of understanding algebraic abstractions.”

The price of failure

What seems to be lost in the drive to push unprepared students into taking Algebra in grade 8 is the cost in terms of student self-confidence.  On a recent HBO “Real Sports” episode, Tiki Barber was asked how his troubles transitioning from pro football to broadcasting had affected him.   “I really tried, but when you try and fail, it’s hard to keep trying.  I would sit in my office and do nothing after that.”  Barber was 34 years old at the time his NBC career ended.  He is a graduate of the University of Virginia and during a brilliant NFL career participated in multiple Pro Bowls.  If someone with those credentials was devastated by being unsuccessful, what are the expectations for fourteen-year-old eighth graders who are overwhelmed by a curriculum in which they experienced scant success in the past?   Tiki Barber is preparing to return to his athletic career; what are the options for an adolescent in a similar mindset?   How many 8th graders are learning to hate mathematics, viewing success in school as beyond their abilities and ultimately beginning to consider dropping out as a dignified retreat?   

Final Jeopardy

If I were a contestant on my imaginary game show, my response to the answer “8th Grade Algebra” would be, “What course should definitely be taught in the eighth grade, but only for those students who are prepared academically, emotionally and neurologically to succeed?”  And then I would change categories.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:04 AM | Permalink

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

Activity Does Not Equal Success

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

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

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

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

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

Loveless' research uncovered some other interesting findings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throw them in the water and see if they can swim

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

Access without excellence is malpractice!

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:21 PM | Permalink

In a recent post on this blog, Stu Singer, The Teacher Leader, writes, "Jay Mathews has proposed a plan that he believes would increase rigor in schools. In a recent Washington Post article “Why not honors courses for all?” he addresses a concern of some parents that their school district is moving away from the traditional three tracks—regular, honors, and college level—by eliminating honors classes.  Mr. Mathews’ solution is a different two-track approach: “Instead of insisting on the old three tracks, tell the schools to keep the honors option and eliminate the basic course.”" The Teacher Leader goes on to propose that a better solution would be not be a choice between basic or the honors classes, but, rather, making the current three options more appropriate.

What is tracking?

There are several different forms of tracking or grouping of students:

1. "Within-class ability grouping" is typically found in elementary schools and not in high schools.
2. "Between-class grouping" - Students spend most of the day in “high,” “middle,” or “low” classes and use the same or similar curricula.
3. "Formal Tracks or Levels" - Students spend most of the day in ability tracks and use curricula substantially adjusted to their ability levels.

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.

It is on the second method of grouping students--"between class grouping" in which most of a student's core course work is taken in groupings identified as basic, honors, and college-level--that Jay Mathews and Stu Singer disagree.  This method has been shown to benefit high achievers but does no harm to low achievers.

My Take On Grouping

First, Stu Singer and I worked in the same school, and, from my perspective, we had only two groupings--standard and advanced. While we had three different labels, in the end, we only had two levels of rigor at each grade level from which students could choose. Courses that fell under the "advanced" label included some courses specifically labeled as "advanced" such as Advanced Algebra I, and, since we were an International Baccalaureate school, pre-IB courses. Pre-IB courses would have been labeled "advanced" or "honors" or pre-AP (Advanced Placement) in most high schools. "Advanced" or "honors" courses, and here is the key, were only offered at the ninth and tenth grades and never in competition with IB courses, which were the only "advanced" courses offered in grades 11 and 12. So, our students were enrolled either in standard-level or advanced-level courses in which enrollment was open to all students. It is also important to note that students self-selected into standard or advanced-level courses. A student could be enrolled in and IB English class, but a standard Algebra II course.

Readiness not Ability

In a perfect world, I would prefer only one grouping and that would be "advanced." However, like most high schools less than 20% of our students arrived at our doors in ninth grade on-target for college. Like my good friend Jay, most proponents of eliminating groupings forget the realities.

The tragedy is that the off-target students had the ability, but for a variety of reasons were barely capable of doing high school level work let alone college-level work. In fact, our initial school wide reading diagnostic assessment revealed that 76% of our students read more than one standard deviation below average, which meant that they would have difficulty comprehending their high school textbooks. Some of these students were so far behind that graduation from high school, not college, was our goal for them.

Simply placing unprepared students into college-level courses would be like throwing a group of beginning swimmers into the river and telling them to swim across. Admittedly, a few would make it, but many would drown. Throwing capable but unprepared students into Advanced Placement or IB courses, as many schools do, is tantamount to malpractice and is akin to colleges admitting students who they know have little or no chance of graduating. They gladly accept their money and send them home saddled in debt. To put it bluntly, this practice of setting students and teachers up to fail is both unethical and immoral.

No honor in "honors"

A while back, at a district-wide high school principals' meeting, one of my colleagues proposed that his school be allowed to create a third course level by offering "honors" courses to eleventh and twelfth graders as an alternative to Advanced Placement courses.

My response was to the point. "First, these so-called honors courses are merely a way to segregate students because their parents don't want them in classrooms with "those kids." Second, unless you have a curriculum, and common formative and summative assessments, there is no way to ensure that honors courses are any more rigorous than standard courses. They are honors in name only. Third, 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. Finally, AP and IB courses are college-level, but they proceed at half speed compared to their college counterparts. If a student cannot succeed in an AP course at half speed, what will happen when that student takes the course at full speed in September?

"Honors" 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 next year. The only way that I would agree to such a proposal is if 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 you really had the best interests of your students in mind, you would ensure that they were adequately prepared to succeed in the most rigorous courses that we could offer them.

Next: Building a Pipeline

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:07 AM | 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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Developing an Effective Interview Process

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

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

Rule 1:  The interview begins with the resume

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

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

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

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

Rule 2:  Have the right people doing the interview

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

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

Rule 3:  Everyone should be asking questions

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

Rule 4:  Ask questions that result in meaningful answers

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

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

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

Rule 5:  The questions are only the beginning

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

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

Rule 6:  Aggressively contact references and previous employers

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

Rule 7:  Use your new hires as a resource

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:17 PM | Permalink

"Lectures have been equally ineffective for centuries."--Carl Weiman

The Boston Globe headline read "Study: It's not the teacher, but method that matters." The headline is misleading. In fact, the study reveals that it is the teacher and how the teacher teaches that matters the most. While the study looked at college physics students, the findings apply to all levels of teaching and learning.

According to Science Magazine, the study conducted by Nobel Prize winning physicist, Carl Weiman, found that "students learned a lot more from teaching assistants using interactive tools than they did from a veteran professor giving a traditional lecture." The students who had to engage interactively using the TV remote-like devices scored about twice as high on a test compared to those who heard the normal lecture."

Active Engagement

According to the report the interactive method used had almost no lecturing. It involved "short, small-group discussions, in-class "clicker" quizzes, demonstrations and question-answer sessions. Frequent Checks for Understanding

"The teachers got real-time graphic feedback on what the students were learning and what they weren't getting."

Weiman said that "It's really what's going on in the students' minds rather than who is instructing them." In other words, lecturers focus on content and teaching, while those using interactive methods put the focus on student learning and process.

The Mindset of the Teacher

Those teachers who prefer lectures with no discussion believe that their job is to impart knowledge. To lecturers, the mind is a vessel to be filled. This is not to say that teachers should never lecture. Students often need background knowledge that may necessitate some use of lecture.

On the other hand, teachers who prefer methods that actively engage students believe that what the student learns takes precedence over what they are teaching. They believe that the mind is a lamp that needs to be lit.

Behavior Doesn't Lie

Students vote with their feet. In the study, student attendance and attention were higher in the interactive class.

Conclusion

According to Weiman, "This is clearly more effective learning. Everybody should be doing this. ... You're practicing bad teaching if you are not doing this."

Wieman said "the need for a more hands-on teaching approach isn't an indictment of a generation raised on video games. It has more to do with the way the brain learns, he said. This method has long worked well in individual tutoring; it's just now being applied on a grander scale, he said.

My Take

High-performing schools are student and learning-focused. Struggling and underachieving schools are adult and teaching-focused. It is not what we teach that is important. The focus needs to be on what our students are learning as a result of our teaching.

Engagement, the active interaction of students with teachers and other students in relation to the content of the lesson, is the key to learning. Engaged learners learn more and they retain what they learn longer.

The option of choosing between lecturing and engaging students was taken off the table when we decided to eliminate factory model, ability-driven schools that sorted students in favor of work and effort-driven schools in which each and every student is expected to achieve to high levels.

A challenge to school leaders

Using the above definition of engagement--students actively interacting...--take a walk through some classrooms. If students are not actively interacting, they are not engaged. Hint: If teachers are calling on students who are raising their hands only a small minority of students will be engaged. The others may appear to be paying attention, but upon closer inspection, they could be doing or thinking about anything. Note: these teachers, while not truly engaging students are far superior to those who ask a question and answer their own question before the students can even raise their hands.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:45 PM | Permalink

As measured by gains in student achievement, teachers, even experienced, mid-career classroom instructors, improved as a result of their participation in a formal evaluation process. An Education Week report cites two studies conducted in Cincinnati, which has an extended history using a formal evaluation system consisting of four formal observations. In Cincinnati, teachers are given a rating relating three standards: classroom practices, classroom management, and questioning and discussion techniques.

In addition to discovering that 1. Teacher participation in a formal evaluation process improved student achievement, the first study concluded the following:

2. Classroom Management Improves Math Performance

The study found that "while overall teaching practice was the best predictor of student achievement, classroom management was more highly correlated with better math performance."

3. Questioning Improves Reading

Teacher use of open-ended questions was more highly correlated with student performance than classroom management.

In a second study, also conducted in Cincinnati, student performance not only improved in the year that the mid-career teachers were being evaluated, but the improvement in student performance continued and even increased in the years following the evaluation.

It is important to note that in the Cincinnati evaluation system teachers are not evaluated annually and that the evaluation process does not use a value-added component. In addition, the Cincinnati teacher evaluation system connects to a career ladder for teachers, which may be a motivating factor.

Implications for School Leaders

- Teacher evaluation is not the most enjoyable part of a school leader's job. However, knowing that teacher evaluation improves student achievement makes the process more meaningful.

- If school leaders want to make a difference in student achievement, teacher evaluation is a no-cost way to do so.

- Teacher evaluation is most effective when the teachers are clear on what behaviors will be evaluated, and if both teachers and principals have had extensive, multi-year professional development. Cincinnati was chosen precisely because both factors were present. In addition, many states and districts are proposing similar evaluation models and Cincinnati's decade long experience should help inform future practice.

- Even more encouraging is the fact that student achievement continues to improve in the years following a meaningful evaluation process of even the most experienced teachers.

- It makes sense that questioning improves reading, but I wonder why classroom management makes a bigger difference in math classes. Perhaps the sequential nature of math demands continuous attention and student engagement--students miss out if they miss a step in the process.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:52 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent article in the Washington Post, Peter Whoriskey discussed the increased push to make Algebra II a requirement for a high school diploma.  Mr. Whoriskey writes, “Of all of the classes offered in high school, Algebra II is the leading predictor of college and work success, according to research that has launched a growing national movement to require it of graduates. In recent years, 20 states and the District have moved to raise graduation requirements to include Algebra II, and its complexities are being demanded of more and more students.”

There are ample reasons to look to methods to improve the success of American students in acquiring a college degree.  The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development has found that the workforce in the United States is trailing other countries in the percentage of young workers who possess a university education. 

Don’t believe every statistic

The causality between success in Algebra II and college is questionable.  As the sale of ice cream cones in New York City rises, the murder rate in that community escalates as well. While it would be intriguing to try to find a correlation between frozen snacks and homicides, the reality is that the two facts are unrelated.  What is true is that as the temperatures rise and interpersonal contact increases, violent crime grows as do the sale of cold, refreshing products.  Tying college success to passing Algebra II is an equally risky comparison.  In a country that pushes unprecedented numbers of eighth-graders to take Algebra I (about 50%) anyone who has not passed Algebra I, Geometry and Algebra II by the end of grade 12 has more than likely encountered some serious educational setbacks. The fact that such students do not perform well in college has far less to do with their math skills than their overall academic prowess.  In the five-year span from 8^th to 12^th grade, any individual who can only pass one or two classes at or above the level of Algebra I is an unlikely candidate for success in higher education.  There is little doubt that parallel correlations could be found between students who pass three lab sciences or three years of a foreign language and their performance in college.

The more math the better

Discounting the direct relationship between Algebra II and college success does not mean that the course is irrelevant.   The value of mastering the skills necessary for success in Algebra II transcends the direct use of logarithms, simultaneous equations or conic sections.  It, like Geometry and Pre-calculus, is a course that is heavily predicated on problem solving skills.  The mental discipline and reasoning required to be mastered can be easily transferred to non-math situations.  Passing this course or any other that demands a high level of persistence, dedication and focus will result in an outcome far more important than the curriculum itself.

Creating an educated society demands that students confront academic challenges.  One of the most disturbing arguments against requiring Algebra II for graduation is that it would encourage students to drop out of school.  Such a response raises the question—what is the purpose of having graduation requirements?  If it is to create an easy path to a diploma is there any wonder why so many students are bored in high school and subsequently struggle in college?  On the other hand, a course of study that demands that students leave their comfort level will strengthen their ability to conquer the more difficult intellectual tasks of the real world.  One of the core causes of the continuing high unemployment rates in this country is the poor educational skills of our workforce and the high expectations of jobs in the 21^st century.  This dilemma was demonstrated by Mr. Whoriskey’s report about the working conditions in a city in Arkansas, a state where the mastery of Algebra II has become a priority.

“For proof of the usefulness of Algebra II, students need look no farther than the largest employers in (the city of) Conway.  Acxiom, a database company that employs 2,100 in the town, hires software and database developers, most of whom have bachelor’s degrees in technical fields. For them, Algebra II skills are a prerequisite. Similarly, at Snap-on Equipment, a plant that employs 170 making the sophisticated gears that garages use to align and balance tires, most production jobs require associate’s degrees in electronics.

“By contrast, at the Kimberly-Clark plant, which makes feminine hygiene and adult incontinence products, production workers need only a high school education. The jobs pay 11 to $20 an hour, and when 70 spots recently came open during an expansion, about 2,000 people applied.

“‘We’re looking for people with the ability to think critically,’ said Jeremy Cannady, until recently a manufacturing efficiency coordinator at the plant. ‘but not the ability to do exponential functions or logarithms.’”

While logarithms may never find their way into one’s life, the critical thinking skills they have imparted will serve a very useful purpose when trying to understand car financing, weighing a decision on a medical procedure or the nuances of a job offer.  The aforementioned $11 per hour jobs have little or no room for negotiation; the ones at Acxion will involve discussing retirement plans, bonus structure and pay raise schedules.  Someone who has learned to understand the principles of Algebra II will be well prepared for such conversations.

Missing the educational point

The fact that there are questions about the rationale for requiring mastery of Algebra II reflects poorly on the students, parents and most of all the math teachers.   The purpose of an education is not solely to acquire a group of facts and skills that will then be transferred directly to a future occupation.  If that were the case there would be scant need to study the works of Shakespeare, the Civil War, Algebra II or a foreign language.  But reading great literature, understanding the ramifications of history and learning to manipulate numbers and words will improve an individual’s ability to think.  That capacity makes the manipulation of a smart phone, understanding the home loan process or building a storage shed much easier.  That this message is not being effectively transmitted to our students reflects one of the basic failures of education in our culture.  Teachers not only need to help students perform calculations precisely, they need to help students understand why they are doing it.  What is the relevance of their subject?  Why should students put the time and effort into learning a particular subject?  The inability of students, parents, teachers and society at large to articulate the importance of education is producing enormous problems for our country’s future.   

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:39 PM | Permalink

Blogger's Note: Few would deny that written communications is an essential skill. It is also a skill that is rarely practiced. While literacy (reading, writing, thinking, speaking) skills are the "spine that holds everything together in all subject areas," in most classrooms, little reading and almost no writing is practiced on a regular basis.

The author of a New York Times op-ed piece is a veteran English teacher who teaches college freshmen to write essays and research papers, which he contends "invite font-size manipulation, plagiarism and clichés."

He believes that "We need to set our sights not lower, but shorter." Instead of insisting on long research papers, this English teacher takes a different, perhaps more relevant approach.

The author believes that "learning how to write concisely, to express one key detail succinctly and eloquently, is an incredibly useful skill, and more in tune with most students’ daily chatter, as well as the world’s conversation. The photo caption has never been more vital."

He is able to enhance the writing skills of his students, make learning more relevant, and differentiate his teaching by using a number of practical writing strategies that any secondary teacher can adopt.

• “Come up with two lines of copy to sell something you’re wearing now on eBay.”
• "Describe the essence of the chalkboard in one or two sentences."
• “Write coherent and original comments for five YouTube videos, quickly telling us why surprised kittens or unconventional wedding dances resonate with millions.”
• Write Amazon reviews for the works we read this semester.
• Write a cover letter or a networking e-mail.

The author emphasizes that "short isn’t necessarily a shortcut. When you have only a sentence or two, there’s nowhere to hide." "I’m not suggesting that colleges eliminate long writing projects from English courses, but maybe we should save them for the second semester."

"Rewarding concision first will encourage students to be economical and innovative with language."

Thoughts for learning leaders

• Reading gets students to college. Writing keeps them there.
• Writing improves reading skills.
• How can we improve our students' writing skills if they never write?
• Concise writing requires deep thinking.
• Synthesizing a complete thought into a few words requires students to engage in higher-order thinking.
• There are numerous examples of teachers using Twitter-like writing to enhance the writing skills of their students.

Strategy: Ask students to take an article or a passage from a book and condense it into PowerPoint bullets of no more than 8 words.

All of the above strategies would make excellent "bell-work" activities.

Writing Resources

Writing to Read: How Writing Can Improve Reading
(2010) www.carnegie.org/literacy

Writing Next (2007) http://www.all4ed.org/files/WritingNext.pdf

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:42 PM | Permalink

A few days ago I introduced my wife to the new iPad app The Daily. Yesterday, she wanted to show me how amazing The Daily was and how she was using it. She particularly liked the videos imbedded in the articles.

"What if you could make a textbook look like this? she said.

I told her to go to the Kahn Academy website and then check out this YouTube video featured on the PBS NewsHour.

A few minutes later, she came back, "This is amazing! This is a dissertation! How long have you known about this?"

I replied, "I tweeted about this a while back. Don't you follow me?"

"I don't know how to do Twitter," she replied.

"Do you know how to use YouTube, I asked? There are some great Twitter tutorials there."

She retorted, "I don't tweet!"

So, you are not interested into tapping into the collective intelligence of hundreds of other people? You think it is better to do it alone?

The Bottom Line

No more excuses - If you have an Internet connection, there is no excuse for not learning about something that you really want to learn about. Look it up!

Check out the Khan Academy. What began as the founder "making a few algebra videos for his cousins has grown to over 2,100 videos and 100 self-paced exercises and assessments covering everything from arithmetic to physics, finance, and history." It is a great resource for teachers and students.

Twitter is the best way to tap into the collective intelligence of many people with whom you share common interests.

Next: Revisiting Reverse Instruction

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:14 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Not as simple as it looks

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

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

A long inflationary cycle

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

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

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

Parents join the fray

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

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

Some parents are more equal than others

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

An issue of fairness

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

A time and a place

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:37 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Bill Gates is a marvelous advocate for education in America.  He has clearly demonstrated his commitment both in time and money.  His views as an extraordinarily successful businessman and an educational outsider are both provocative and productive.  In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, Mr. Gates has outlined a series of constructive proposals for improving U. S. student performance despite the significant financial problems confronting so many school districts.

Some great ideas

One aspect of Mr. Gates analysis is the classroom:

“We know that of all the variables under a school's control, the single most decisive factor in student achievement is excellent teaching. It is astonishing what great teachers can do for their students. Yet compared with the countries that outperform us in education, we do very little to measure, develop and reward excellent teaching. We have been expecting teachers to be effective without giving them feedback and training.”

Most teachers would agree with these comments.  I have long argued that the majority of teacher evaluation programs currently in use need some serious improvement.  There must be a more comprehensive approach which includes professional evaluators, constant feedback and some student input. 

In addition, Mr. Gates is not happy with the use of seniority in teaching.

“The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It's reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that's not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement."

“Another standard feature of school budgets is a bump in pay for advanced degrees. Such raises have almost no impact on achievement, but every year they cost $15 billion that would help students more if spent in other ways.”

A solution that must be implemented carefully

Mr. Gates concludes with some thoughts about class size.

“Perhaps the most expensive assumption embedded in school budgets - and one of the most unchallenged - is the view that reducing class size is the best way to improve student achievement. This belief has driven school budget increases for more than 50 years. U.S. schools have almost twice as many teachers per student as they did in 1960, yet achievement is roughly the same."

“What should policymakers do? One approach is to get more students in front of top teachers by identifying the top 25 percent of teachers and asking them to take on four or five more students. Part of the savings could then be used to give the top teachers a raise. (In a 2008 survey funded by the Gates Foundation, 83 percent of teachers said they would be happy to teach more students for more pay.) The rest of the savings could go toward improving teacher support and evaluation systems, to help more teachers become great.”

It is important to note that Mr. Gates is referring to an increase in class size of about 15%.   When individuals less knowledgeable interpret enlargement of class size, things go awry.  Base on their current budget cuts,  the city of Detroit is anticipating classes in excess of 60 in the near future  – an increase of 100%.  Many classes in New York City are already at those levels.  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has postulated that, for excellent teachers, working with large classes is no more difficult than working with smaller ones.  He mentioned that he had attended college classes that contained hundreds of students.  Of course those classes were at Princeton and Georgetown Law School which more than likely bear little resemblance to an Algebra 1 class in Detroit or New York or anywhere else for that matter. 

Great teachers not super heroes

The primary flaw in these arguments is the belief that increasing the size of classes only requires additional furniture.  There is no question that an excellent teacher can give high quality instruction to classes of 35 or more while poor ones will struggle no matter how small their audience.  But the belief that student learning is unaffected by significantly larger numbers is misguided.  A successful teacher has a great many tasks in addition to delivering instruction.  Students, like teachers, benefit from consistent and meaningful feedback on their classroom performance.  Twice as many students mandates half as much feedback. Any teacher will tell you that grading papers is easily as time consuming as preparing lesson plans.  Evaluating 60 quizzes or tests per class would be daunting to say the least.  Due entirely to time constraints, comprehensive exams would have to be replaced by short answer or multiple choice ones.  Extended essays and research papers would disappear. Answering student questions and individualizing instructions, the strengths of the best educators, would have to be curtailed.  Science labs would become virtually impossible due to a shortage of equipment and safety concerns.  Group projects and presentations would be untenable.  Even the simple acts of taking attendance, posting grades and parent conferences could become overwhelming. At the very least, they would require far too much valuable time.  The quality of the educational experience for students in these significantly larger classes would suffer greatly.

In the proposal by Mr. Gates he mentions that the vast majority of teachers would gladly take on more students if their pay was increased.  Unfortunately, this survey was of all teachers not just excellent ones.  I suspect that if that question were only asked of the best educators there might be a different result.  But even if the top teachers did agree, one stumbling block would remain.  While tactics could be put in place to increase salaries, no one has found a method of adding more hours to the day. 

It is true that the success of any class rests squarely on the shoulders of the teacher and creating more great teachers is the key to any future improvement of our schools.  They need to be identified, rewarded and emulated.  Having them teach a few more students makes perfect sense on many levels.  But too much of any good thing can lead to bad outcomes resulting in further degradation of the educational process and outcomes in the United States.  Proceed with caution—class size does matter.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:59 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

There are few lightning rods in the educational landscape of 2011 that rival the debate on the role of testing in the evaluation of student, teacher and school performance.  However, another perspective on this topic was addressed in a recent Mel Riddile post which discussed research indicating that frequent testing had a positive impact on learning.

According to Dr. Riddile, “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.”  This discussion does not concern the end-of-course barrier exams that are the focal point of most educational conversations.  The research revolves around the use of testing within a teacher’s daily lesson planning.  The study found “practicing retrieval produces greater gains in meaningful learning than elaborate studying.”  As Dr. Riddile notes, “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.”

Perhaps the most compelling conclusion noted revolved around the retention of information.  “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.”

The view from the classroom

For forty years I taught high school mathematics.  For the last thirty-eight I employed a teaching technique that paralleled the views expressed in those studies.  Whether the subject was General Math, Algebra 1, Algebra 2 or Pre-calculus I created a classroom strategy that was clearly focused on the concept of frequent and consistent testing.   It was a plan that was simple and direct. 

The centerpiece of the plan

Every class period included a quiz.  It always contained relatively simple questions that could be completed in ten to fifteen minutes.  Questions would be graded on a “right or wrong” basis with little partial credit involved.  It would be the math equivalent of a short-answer, fill-in-the-blanks question.  As the previously noted research found, the regular testing of information led to a number of extremely important outcomes.  Not only did the students retain the material better, they were also clearly aware of their academic status in the class.   A daily evaluation of one’s performance means no one is surprised by their ultimate success or failure.  The teacher also benefits from having a barometer of student learning in every class period.   A quiz that results in a significant number of poor grades requires more work on the topic.  One that indicates overall comprehension allows an educator to move forward with confidence.  Since it is critical that these papers be returned the next class meeting, they must be easy to grade.  The best utilization of time for the teacher is to be able to grade one set of papers while the next class is taking their quiz. 

A systematic approach

My overall classroom strategy was to introduce every topic in three consecutive classes.  The daily quiz was a key component of that plan.  This approach was used regardless of the level of the math or whether the school utilized a block or non-block schedule.  On day 1 a topic would be presented to the students.  An explanation of the concept would be followed by examples and then homework would be assigned to give the students practice.  Day 2 would begin with a review of the homework.  After that review was completed and all questions were answered, a quiz would be given.  Designed to cover this one concept, it was based on questions similar to those found on the homework.  On day 3 the quiz would be returned and reviewed.  

This philosophy was explained in detail to the students on the first day of school.  A typical class would be divided into four segments.  Part one was returning the quiz from the previous session and discussing any questions.  The next segment was reviewing the homework assignment.  Often a worksheet would follow to ensure understanding.  At the conclusion of that conversation the class was given a quiz.  The fourth and final element of the period was devoted to the next topic which would be then practiced in a homework assignment. The next class would be structured in the same manner.   By following this schedule every topic was discussed in three consecutive classes.

It sounds so boring

Obviously, such a highly-structured approach could be a formula for boredom.  Though the basic plan never changed, the challenge for the teacher was to create variety within the segments.  On some occasions I would have my “A” students write the quiz solutions on the board.  An “A” student was anyone who received a grade of “A” on that particular quiz.  Students quickly perceived this opportunity as an “honor” and since all students at one time or another would have a perfect paper I would take care throughout the year to have as many different students as possible receive this recognition.  It was stunning to watch otherwise sophisticated 18-year-olds become giddy when they had a chance to demonstrate their math prowess.  On other occasions, I would personally focus on any problem that was missed by a significant number of students. 

The review of the homework was also approached in different ways.  Volunteers would be solicited on some occasions; other times students were assigned problems.  A third option would have me do the work.  The practice worksheets could be presented as individual work, group projects, contests, or puzzles.  The outcome was always the same—practice—but the methods would vary from day to day. 

The introduction of the new topic would also be open to a variety of educational strategies.  Lecture, group discovery, question-answer and any other method available would be employed on different occasions.

Students love structure

People are most comfortable when they have a familiar routine.  When students feel comfortable in a class they become more confident.  By the end of the first week of school, my students understood the process and knew what to expect each day.  There were no surprises.   At the end of every year I would give my students the opportunity to complete an anonymous evaluation of the course.  When asked for the aspect that contributed the most to their success, the daily quiz was selected more often than all of the other options combined. 

The sincerest form of flattery

Over the course of my career a number of teachers adopted my “daily quiz” approach to teaching.  These individuals taught in courses all across the curriculum.  Many reported not only improved learning but also better communication in terms of student performance.  My wife, an associate Biology professor at a junior college, has successfully used the same strategy with her students. 

Clearly from my perspective those research studies are truly on to something.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:28 AM | 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What school leaders should consider

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:59 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Recently I was asked for my thoughts concerning the revisions being incorporated into the AP program.  In the next few years several of these classes are going to undergo extensive changes.  According to Christopher Drew in the New York Times “…many of the (AP) courses, particularly in the sciences and history, have also been criticized for overwhelming students with facts to memorize and then rushing through important topics.”  Mr. Drew continues, “A.P. teachers have long complained that lingering for an extra 10 or 15 minutes on a topic can be a zero-sum game, squeezing out something else that needs to be covered for the exam. PowerPoint lectures are the rule. The homework wears down many students.”  The prime focus of the changes will be the tests administered at the conclusion of the classes.  The plan is to reduce the volume of material to be covered on the exams and to create a guide as to what parts of the curriculum will and will not be included. 

Currently the two subjects being given the most significant facelift are United States History and Biology.  Since I have taught neither I will leave the evaluation of these alterations to those with more expertise in the curricula.  But as someone who taught math in the International Baccalaureate (IB) program for more than a decade and oversaw a department that participated in both programs for 26 years, I would like to comment on a few points concerning this overhaul.

The highest form of flattery

In general the changes that are being made appear to be designed to require more creative thinking by the students and allow teachers increased flexibility.  While I applaud these adaptations as positive steps, I also note that many of these new strategies have been employed by the IB program for years. There is, however, an IB tenet that is not being emulated.  One of the greatest strengths of the IB program has been the commitment to providing adequate class time for certain college-level courses that contain extensive and dense subject matter.  At my former school, when the change was made to become IB, the classes in Biology, Physics, and Calculus were taught over a two-year period.  This extended time allowed the teachers to present a course that was reflective of a college curriculum.  The new AP plan addresses this issue by reducing the material to be covered but does not extend class time.   While that approach may improve test scores, it will do little to ensure adequate coverage of the curriculum.  If the goal is to offer a college-level course taught with the rigor and expectations of an actual university class, it must be understood that a typical gifted high school student may need additional time in the more academically challenging areas. 

A personal complaint

There was one other troubling aspect of this article.  One public high school AP Biology teacher expressed concern about the addition of math concepts to the course.  According to the article this educator was worried that the new math requirements will discourage students from enrolling in the class.  I find this attitude very disturbing.  If the goal of an advanced program is to create academically well-rounded students, should the inclusion of basic statistical math be a reason for such concerns?  Is it unreasonable to expect a "college-level" science student to be able to use and understand such principles?  It is troubling to say the least that educators at this level may be incorporating their students’ potential aversion to math as part of the enrollment strategy. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:42 AM | Permalink

Winnie Hu of the New York Times, recently wrote about the increasing use of the iPad in American schools and, in a short time, there have been a number of follow-up articles, some supportive and some negative.

Hu's article mentions a pilot program at Roslyn High School on Long Island, which distributed 47 iPads on Dec. 20 to the students and teachers in two humanities classes. The school district hopes to provide iPads eventually to all 1,100 of its students.

I recently had the opportunity to visit a small, rural, high-poverty school system and observed pre-school and kindergartners using iPads. I have recent experience with both iPads and one-to-one computing. Even though I was the principal in a large urban high school in which each of our students had their own laptop and I have my own iPad, I had some questions about iPads and how they could be integrated into classroom instruction to actually enhance student performance. In other words, were the iPads toys or personal computing devices?

Any doubts that I held were quickly dismissed by the effortless manner in which these four and five-year-olds and their teachers have integrated used the iPads into the learning experience. For these beginning readers, the iPads were a normal part of their learning experience. In fact, if I hadn't known, I would have thought the iPads had been around for years, instead of months.

The students used the iPads both individually and in pairs. As is their custom, the teachers had students working in groups of 6-8 students. While one groups was using the iPads, another was working with an instructional aide and another was working with the teacher. The iPad group required little or no direction from the teacher or her aide. They simply launched the app as instructed and proceeded to work.

I was particularly impressed by one specific app that cost a mere 99 cents because, several years ago, our school had purchased a software package that addressed the very same literacy skills. The difference is that that software cost tens of thousands of dollars more.

Additional thoughts on iPads and technology intergration:

- iPads are durable enough for use by even the youngest users.

- The software/apps are low-cost and are getting better all the time. So, the teachers can afford to experiment to find the apps that are best for their students. Furthermore, if they have a student with a specific need, they can find an app for that.

- Those favoring a "back to basics," pencil and paper approach to classroom instruction would be impressed by the fact that the students were actively engaged and on-task. The iPads were not being used as toys, but to support personalized student learning.

- iPads have long batter life, ease of mobility, and a screen large enough to allow for active social interaction. Battery life was a big issue for us in our one-to-one project.

Novelty, Nicety, or Necessity?

Think about it! How extensive would your personal use of technology be if you had to share a computer with two or three other people in your office? My guess is that you would be years behind where you are right now. I know that I would. The fact is that, when it comes to adults, we know that they need their own computing device.

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:37 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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:33 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Teaching the wrong things

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

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

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

A very good teaching tool

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

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

Sending the wrong message

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

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

Should educators be concerned about youth gambling?

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:37 PM | Permalink

I hesitate to address the sensitive topic of international comparisons with school leaders who have to face the reality of leading schools on a day-to-day basis. However, I wasn't subjected to the kind of attacks on public schools, teachers, and principals that we have experienced of the past year. In the past, when NAEP or PISA results were released, we simply shrugged our shoulders and moved on. Today, however, our teachers and community expect us to respond when asked. In fact, our silence on this matter could be deafening.

That is why I put together some talking points for school leaders on the 2009 PISA results. I have drawn from a number of sources including the Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD), which coordinates the international assessments and the Washington Post.

Background

• Begun in 2000, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a system of international assessments that focuses on 15-year-olds' capabilities in reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy.
• PISA is coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization of industrialized countries. 38 OECD nations and 28 partner nations participated in the assessment.
• PISA includes measures of general or cross-curricular competencies such as problem solving.
• PISA emphasizes functional skills that students have acquired as they near the end of compulsory schooling.
• The U.S. sample for the latest results includes both public and private schools, with 165 schools and 5,233 students participating in all. Schools are randomly selected and 15-year-old students within those schools are randomly selected.

2009 Results

• Reading: The U.S. average score in reading (500) was not measurably different than other OECD countries. U.S. female students scored higher than male students.
• U.S. 15-year-olds had an average score of 500 on the combined reading literacy scale, not measurably different from the OECD average score of 493. Among the 33 other OECD countries, 6 countries had higher average scores than the United States, 13 had lower average scores, and 14 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average. Among the 64 other OECD countries, non-OECD countries and other education systems, 9 had higher average scores than the United States, 39 had lower average scores, and 16 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average. 

• Math: U.S. average score in math was lower than the OECD average. Male students, in general, scored higher than female students. Since 2006, U.S. has caught up with 9 countries.
• U.S. 15-year-olds had an average score of 487 on the mathematics literacy scale, which was lower than the OECD average score of 496. Among the 33 other OECD countries, 17 countries had higher average scores than the United States, 5 had lower average scores, and 11 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average. Among the 64 other OECD countries, non-OECD countries, and other education systems, 23 had higher average scores than the United States, 29 had lower average scores, and 12 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average score. 

• Science: 12 other OECD countries had higher average scores than the United States.
• On the science literacy scale, the average score of U.S. students (502) was not measurably different from the OECD average (501). Among the 33 other OECD countries, 12 had higher average scores than the United States, 9 had lower average scores, and 12 had average scores that were not measurably different. Among the 64 other OECD countries, non-OECD countries, and other education systems, 18 had higher average scores, 33 had lower average scores, and 13 had average scores that were not measurably different from the U.S. average score.
• Male students scored higher than female students. Overall score was higher than 2006, and the gains in science exceeded those for math.
• The US is one of three nations that give more money to highly advantaged schools than to disadvantaged schools.
• Overall, private schools do better on PISA...until you account for SES.
• There are number of high performing economically disadvantaged schools in the US: "success is possible against all odds."

U.S. Strengths and Weaknesses

• U.S. students showed the best relative performance in answering questions that judged students’ ability to reflect and evaluate information. On that measure, the United States ranked seventh out of the 34 OECD nations.
• The weakest area for U.S. achievement was in accessing and retrieving information, for which students tied for 19th place with France.

Behind the Facts

• The PISA rankings are determined by nations’ average scores. "Some researchers have suggested, however, that average score comparisons are not useful: even presuming that the tests have some meaning for future accomplishment, average students are not likely to be the leaders in fields of mathematics and science."
• In the last administration of PISA, the United States has 25% of all high-scoring students in the world. Among nations with high average scores, Japan accounted for 13% of the highest scorers, Korea 5%, Taipei 3%, Finland 1%, and Hong Kong 1%.
• The fact that one of four high-scoring students came from the United States and the remaining high-scores came from the other 58 countries participating "suggests that many American schools are actually doing very well indeed."
• "Well-resourced schools serving wealthy neighborhoods are showing excellent results. Poorly resourced schools serving low-income communities of color do far worse."
• The U.S. had many more students scoring at the lowest levels; these kids likely can’t compete for the good jobs in the country."
• "Americans in low-poverty schools look very good, even in mathematics. They would be ranked third in the 4th grade (among 36 nations) 6th in the 8th grade (among 47 nations). This is important because while other developed nations have poor children, the U. S. has a much higher proportion and a much weaker safety net. When UNICEF studied poverty in 22 wealthy nations, the U. S. ranked 21st."
• The highest scoring countries have less diversity and less poverty.

PISA confirms what we already know. The U.S. is quite capable of producing top performing students in well-resourced schools serving middle class neighborhoods. Under-resourced schools in poor neighborhoods do not fare as well.

Resources:

OECD

Are today’s students prepared for the knowledge economy of the 21st century?

PISA: Who made the grade? (OECD)

Washington Post

Do international test comparisons make sense?

Hysteria over PISA misses the point

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:54 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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memos don't change culture

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

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

Bring on the talking heads

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

Let me count the ways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

When I read Mel Riddile’s discussion of the value of a math education my immediate response was to cheer.  For years I told my students and their parents that obtaining a degree in math was the pathway to financial success.  The Wall Street Journal chart provided in the post plainly showed that the starting salaries of math-related careers were among the highest. The paper’s analysis of the data was clear—"(the) starting pay of certain liberal arts majors generally clocks in well below that of graduates in engineering fields." Just as I began to run a victory lap around my computer, my telephone rang.

A difference of opinion

The call was from a friend who could not believe what she had just read.  The conversation began “Stu, I read the post on “Math Pays” and I thought the math/economics person in you would realize…”  From the tone of her voice I knew immediately that I was in trouble.  This individual is not only very intelligent; she also has a strong math background though her area of expertise is in liberal arts.  I must report (with no sense of pride) that I interrupted the caller to relate that I had not written the article in question.  Yes, I admit it—in a moment of panic I threw my subject under the educational bus. 

As she continued I found that her thoughts were both interesting and informative.  “…you should realize that pay differences may also be due to scarcity – as more engineers are produced wages will decline.  Also, snapshots are not trends.  Additionally, these seem like four-year degree first jobs – does this exclude graduate degree wages?”

She finished with a compelling closing.  “Wages are supposed to be the equivalent of societal value.  I’d argue that the free market undervalues jobs that are in the commons and overvalues jobs in the private sector.  Example:  no matter how logical a scientific or mathematical position may be, without political will and knowledge of the system little will get done.  Just consider issues such as global climate change and infrastructure. Knowledge of how a community functions is necessary for positive progress, yet nowhere on the chart is there anything to do with civics/political science.”

Finding some common ground

When she paused to catch her breath I quickly mentioned that I had previously written a post defending the teaching of math but with the use of social rather than financial arguments. This article brought us closer to a consensus.  Her response after reading it was “Something that really bothers me is the use of undergrad education as a high-level trade school.  We should be educating all students in the sciences, social sciences, history, math, literature. Do you know that for most Americans the last history class they take is 11th grade U.S. History?   The idea that someone in engineering school can go through four years of college and only be educated in engineering is absurd.  The idea that a student majoring in Theater can’t interpret simple statistics or identify mode, mean, median of attendance data is nonsensical.  The knowledge to understand equilibrium should not be limited to science majors.  The trend of higher education seems to be to create cogs in the economic machine at the expense of participants in a healthy society.”

The more perspectives the better

Is it possible that I have been convinced to abandon a belief I have been espousing for decades?   No, I will continue to argue vehemently that the study of math is critical for everyone. However, I do find the input of someone from outside the field extremely persuasive.  Voices representing every academic endeavor need to be heard and heeded.  If we actually listen we will soon realize that the best education is a well-rounded one. 

Perhaps my caller’s final statement presented the essential overriding thought: “My feeling is that no subject holds a monopoly on thinking skills or usefulness.”  Let me just say, “Amen”.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:53 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In any conversation about education, the views of Bill Gates should be given serious consideration.  Unlike many of the other high profile people engaged in this ongoing discussion, his thoughts are not influenced by any professional involvement.  Gates does not have a job description to fulfill as does Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  He does not have to speak for teachers like Randi Weingarten.  He is not a politician, has no profit motive, or even a former career in education to protect.  What he does have is a sincere interest, a powerful commitment and the necessary resources to make competent judgments on the subject.  Consequently when I saw an article about him in a recent issue of Parade Magazine I decided it was a must read.  One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion was his opinion of the qualities of a good teacher.    

Simple but compelling

When asked why there are so many bad teachers and not enough great ones in American public schools Gates replied:

“Very little is invested in understanding great teaching. We've never had a meaningful evaluation system that identifies the dimensions of great teachers so we can transfer the skills to others. The Gates Foundation has learned that two questions can predict how much kids learn: ‘Does your teacher use class time well?’ and, ‘When you're confused, does your teacher help you get straightened out’?”

I found the two questions posed by the Gates Foundation very intriguing.  In my experience with teacher evaluations, the process was exclusively top down – in other words, from the perspective of the teachers and administrators. There would be an evaluator who solicits information from the teacher such as classroom goals and objectives.  This person then attends classes to observe what activities or actions actually do occur.  The evaluation concludes with a discussion of the relevant information with the teacher. 

The Foundation questions, on the other hand, were from the viewpoint of the classroom consumer—the student.  And based on their research the responses were strong indicators of the level of student learning.  Since this outcome is the ultimate goal of education it would seem that some use of this resource would be appropriate.  While student input cannot replace the evaluation process, it could bring into the procedure a group of individuals who have a unique perspective on the work of the teacher. Though the two questions mentioned by Gates are very simple, they have proven to be a strong indicator of student learning.  Expanding on those inquiries might provide a method to define the basic ingredients of successful teaching.  Below I have incorporated them into a ten-part student questionnaire. 

1. Does your teacher use class time well?  (Gates)
2. When you are confused, does your teacher help you get straightened out?  (Gates)
3. Do you believe that your teacher wants you to succeed?
4. Do you think the teacher is fair and consistent?
5. Does your teacher have a broad knowledge of the subject?
6. Does your teacher sincerely care about the subject?
7. Do you believe your teacher enjoys teaching?
8. Do you feel that your teacher will spend extra time to ensure that you learn?
9. Do you look forward to going to this class?
10. Do you listen to what is being said by the teacher during class?

My question for you is this—what should be added to or subtracted from this list?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

If only they had listened

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

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

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

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

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

Some things cannot be undone

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

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

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

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

While some may question "how much math we really need," the numbers don't lie. According to a Wall Street Journal article, the "starting pay of certain liberal arts majors generally clocks in well below that of graduates in engineering fields."

"Graduates with engineering degrees earned average starting pay of $56,000 in their first full-time jobs out of college, topping other majors. Communications and English majors only earned $34,000 in their first jobs."

Conversation Starter

We may be debating the wrong issue. Instead of asking if our students need math skills, we should be asking what math skills do our students really need?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:12 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

After reading the comments on my post concerning tenure and evaluation, I realized that it was possible that what I was thinking about those topics was not reflected in what I was actually writing.  My first thought was to use the Charles Barkley defense.  When questioned about a controversial quote in his autobiography, the Hall of Fame basketball player said, “Obviously I was misquoted.”  But when my wife sided with the detractors, I decided to take a second look at what I had written.  My revisit convinced me that I needed to do some serious restating of my positions

What I did not mean

Unfortunately if someone chose to read my words rather than my mind, the following conclusions were highly probable:            

1. After three years teachers cannot improve at their craft
2. Therefore, there is little reason to work on improving one’s skills
3. Consequently, there is no value in having evaluations after year three

Try, try again—Topic 1

My semantic nightmare began as the result of an ill-fated attempt to differentiate between “evaluation” and “professional growth”.  I believe that for many people evaluation is a red-flag word.  These people view it as an administrative referendum on the success or failure of a teacher rather than an opportunity to improve a teacher’s skills.  With that perception in mind I tried to separate these two outcomes.  To achieve that split I contend that during the first three years of a career teachers should be subjected to an extensive and comprehensive evaluation.  During this process a decision should be made as to whether these individuals have the skills necessary to become an effective educator.  After that level of ability is quantified, the focus should then be placed on professional growth—continually working to become a better teacher.  I have often written that this method would be remarkably similar to evaluation—classroom observations by professional evaluators, videotaping, visiting other classes, frequent professional development opportunities. During my forty years as a high school math teacher I spent a great deal of time working with new teachers.  One of my main points of emphasis was that my approach was constantly evolving.  I would point out that every year whether it was my fifth, twenty-fifth or thirty-fifth, I would make notes to myself about changes I would incorporate the following year.  I strongly encouraged them to do the same.  Let me be clear—in order to be an effective teacher, one must be constantly evaluating and reevaluating their work.  New technologies, policies and educational theories must be studied and when appropriate incorporated into the classroom.

Topic 2

My second writing fiasco was my comment that teachers do not improve after three years.  This massive misstatement was the result of inadvertently grouping weak and strong teachers together.  The intended focus of this statement was on the removal of weak teachers.  I should have clearly stated that, if after three years of extensive evaluations, a person is found to lack the necessary talents to succeed as a teacher, the likelihood of the any significant improvement is remote.  This belief is based on observations of poor teachers, who for a variety of reasons were able to continue their careers despite obvious shortcomings.  Allowing these educators to remain year after year in the hope that they would suddenly become competent had a highly negative impact on the students they taught.  Consequently, I remain firmly convinced a more efficient and expedient method for removing these teachers must be implemented. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:18 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone Working Together

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:06 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

At your next social gathering, bring up the currently hot topic of teacher tenure and you most assuredly will elicit many diverse opinions and emotions.  Some people are adamant that it creates and retains bad teachers.  Others are equally vociferous that without it good teachers are robbed of due process and are at risk of being fired on a principal’s whimsy.  One viewpoint will espouse that lifetime employment destroys motivation; the response will be that job security allows experimentation and innovation.

There is no question that many high-profile educators are firmly convinced that tenure is an absolute necessity.  In a recent post Tom Whitby, an invited participant at the MSNBC “Education Nation” forum, wrote about the critical need for tenure in all schools.  Mr. Whitby was particularly upset by the comments of a young educator who received a great deal of attention when  she stated that she did not feel a need for tenure because she was confident that her classroom performance would ensure her of continued employment.  Clearly, Mr. Whitby disagreed. 

“The sound of fingernails on the blackboard for that statement ripped into me. What she was asking for is what Tenure IS. It is a guarantee of due process. It guarantees that the only thing you can be fired for is that which you are responsible for in your teaching duties. What you CAN be fired for under the Tenure law is: Misconduct, Incompetence, Insubordination, Physical or Mental Disability, Neglect of Duty, or a Lack of Teaching Certificate. Additionally, it cannot be a blind accusation, it must be documented. It is also presented at a hearing with all parties under oath. This guarantees fairness in firing people. Why would any teacher say they don’t need that? If the world were as this young teacher assumes it is, having all teachers judged on the merits of their teaching, it would be a wonderful world. History shows us that it has not always been so.”

A difference of opinion 

While I strongly agree with Mr. Whitby that teachers must be protected against unjustified dismissals, I am not convinced that tenure is the best approach.  The ultimate goal of education must be to produce successful students.   Every day that a weak teacher is in the classroom has the potential of inflicting significant damage to student progress.   Any program that slows the termination process will have a potentially negative impact on academic success.  Thus, based on my own professional observations and after reading about the “rubber rooms” in New York City, I believe there are better methods than tenure to produce a high quality teaching staff.  What is needed is an efficient and effective plan to make good teachers more productive and reduce the number of weak ones.  Here is a four-step approach to building a teaching staff that will give superior results to one that depends primarily on tenure.

A comprehensive hiring process.     The act of selecting the correct candidates is one of the most important functions of a school.   The math of the situation is simple.  Hiring a higher percentage of excellent teachers dramatically lessens the need to find methods to remove poor ones. The job interview should include a sample teaching presentation by the applicant, multiple references, an on-site writing sample, and an extended question and answer period.  Great care should be taken throughout the reference process.  It should be the professional responsibility of all parties to be as honest and candid as possible when discussing the previous work of a candidate.  Far too many times when contacting references faulty or misleading information has lead to inappropriate hires.  The interviewing panel should include the department chair, assistant principal and a teacher from the subject area.  A follow up interview should have classroom observations by the candidate and time interacting with potential colleagues.  This approach will take a great deal of time.  But every minute spent finding the right individual can save hours of suffering with the wrong one.

Have rigorous evaluations during a teacher’s first three years.  The time to determine the potential of an educator is early in their career.  After three years it is highly unlikely that one will improve appreciatively.  But to be able to accurately determine a person’s potential requires a complex process.  Five or more observations by professional evaluators should occur each year.  Several of the sessions should be done by individuals who are certified in the subject area.  Videotapes of classes should be taken and reviewed by both the evaluators and teachers.   If at any point during this period a teacher is determined to be lacking the skills to be successful there should be a clearly established policy for termination.  Again, while such an evaluation system will be time consuming and expensive, dealing with the results of poor teaching will be far more costly and detrimental to students.

Create a continuing system of collaborative “teacher growth”.  After the initial evaluation period, the teaching staff should engage in an ongoing effort to improve each other’s skills.  This program would include a consistent interchange of ideas from colleagues who will observe each other’s classes, share ideas and suggestions, and when appropriate, carefully analyze student test results.  These groupings should include both teachers within a department and those from other subject areas.  It must be clearly understood that this is not an evaluation process but rather an opportunity to improve and refine teaching practices. 

Reduce the influence of the principal in the dismissal process.   I strongly agree with Mr. Whitby’s concern with a potentially capricious decision by a principal to fire a teacher.  (An example of this type of abuse of power will be presented in a follow up to this post)  I endorse two initiatives to eliminate the potential of such an occurrence. Requests for teacher terminations would be the responsibility of a committee rather than the exclusive domain of the principal.  In addition to the principal this committee could include the director of guidance, an assistant principal and the district coordinator of the particular curriculum.   In addition, greater care must be taken in the selection process of principals to ensure that individuals who would perform in an unprofessional manner would be excluded.  A process very similar to the one suggested for teachers should be adopted for administrative hiring.  Once again, the extra time and energy required for such a plan would be ultimately less costly than the damage caused by the wrong person being in this position. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

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

"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)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

The Gold Standard No More

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

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

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

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

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

Tip of the Iceberg

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:24 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

Inertia can be unproductive

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

Finding Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:27 PM | Permalink

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

A plan that will help but…

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

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

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

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

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

Is this really the best solution?

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

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

A Better Approach

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:54 PM | Permalink

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

We have devoted a number of articles to the concept of TIME and learning. Both The Teacher Leader and I learned through practice that, of all the ways to improve student achievement—time, setting (class size), methods, curriculum--time may be the most critical. Schools often don’t or can’t control the curriculum. Class size has to be really small to make a difference, and, in tight budget times, is probably unrealistic. Improving teaching methods takes years and is a never-ending process. However, increasing learning time holds the greatest promise for immediate improvements in student performance

Researchers at the Johns Hopkins National Summer Learning Association believe that two-thirds of the achievement gap can be directly attributed to summer learning loss. While schools are being shut down, reconstituted, and principals and teachers fired for low student achievement, we continue to ignore the research because summer learning is not glamorous and it is not a “silver bullet.”

In “The Case Against Summer Vacation,” Time Magazine’s August 2 issue jumps on the bandwagon. Here are some highlights from the article:

• Part of the problem is one of perception. “We associate the school year with oppression and the summer months with liberty.”
• “American students are competing with children around the globe who may be spending four weeks longer in school each year, larking through summer is a luxury we can't afford.”
• “Deprived of healthy stimulation, millions of low-income kids lose a significant amount of what they learn during the school year. Call it "summer learning loss," as the academics do, or "the summer slide," but by any name summer is among the most pernicious — if least acknowledged — causes of achievement gaps in America's schools.”
• Children with access to high-quality experiences can exercise their minds and bodies at sleep-away camp, on family vacations, in museums and libraries and enrichment classes. Meanwhile, children without resources languish on street corners or in front of glowing screens. By the time the bell rings on a new school year, the poorer kids have fallen weeks, if not months, behind. And even well-off American students may be falling behind their peers around the world.”
• “Researchers at Johns Hopkins University concluded that while students made similar progress during the school year, regardless of economic status, the better-off kids held steady or continued to advance during the summer — while disadvantaged students fell back. By the end of grammar school, low-income students had fallen nearly three grade levels behind. By ninth grade, roughly two-thirds of the learning gap separating income groups could be blamed on summer learning loss.”
• Across the country, there is a “growing movement to stop the summer slide by coordinating, expanding, and improving summer enrichment programs — especially for low-income children.”

Let me say this one more time, if you hold learning time constant, you are effectively ensuring that a significant portion of your students, mostly poor and disadvantaged, will fail. By failing to provide adequate learning time, you have built failure into your system.

Sumer learning must become a normal part of schooling, not “The Grinch That Stole Summer Vacation."

It’s About Time!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

Inertia can be unproductive

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

Finding Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:19 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

Principal’s Perspective

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

The New Equation

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:01 PM | Permalink

Years ago, a principal friend of mine in a nearby high school was the subject of a student prank. The students pasted her head on a photograph of a naked woman and stuffed the picture into a display cabinet that was as far away from the main office as possible. By the time the key could be located and the picture removed many, many of the students in the school were able to view it. The picture created quite a stir. The picture demeaned the principal, distracted students and staff alike, and disrupted school for most of the day. Of course, the perpetrators had to brag about it and they were appropriately disciplined. Every student expected that there would be a consequence as did the staff and parents.

More recently, the news has been replete with stories about General Stanley Allen McChrystal, who was relieved of his command in Afghanistan as a result of comments that were reported in Rolling Stone Magazine. At the time, very few experts were surprised that he lost his job because he publicly criticized his boss. No one questioned the General’s right to say what he said, nor did they question the right of his superior to take appropriate disciplinary action.

Fast forward to the present and a USA Today article by Ken Paulson, president of the Newseum and First Amendment Center. I had to read the opening several times before I could believe what I was reading.

“While we've all benefited from the good teachers and school administrators in our lives, it's hard to shake the memories of those who either didn't teach us very well or treated us badly. Students in the pre-digital era pretty much just had to grin and bear it. We would grumble to our friends or complain to our parents, but we weren't going to get an audience with the school board. Times have changed. The current generation is armed with social media, and it's payback time.”

So, let me get this straight. If you don’t agree with or like someone, you have the right to use the Internet as a global printing press to undermine, demean, and slander that person all in the name of “payback.” It is one thing to stuff a picture into a display cabinet where it can be removed quickly. While the memories linger, there is no permanent record of the incident. It is quite another thing to be quoted in a magazine and universally posted on the Internet where everything is permanent.

I believe in the right of student expression and the need to include student voice as an integral part of school improvement efforts. As a principal, I never exercised my right of prior review over our student newspaper. Instead, I focused my efforts on recruiting, hiring, and retaining the best teachers whose job it was to teach and guide young journalists. It is true that some of our colleagues have exceeded their authority, which could happen in any setting. However, this article has taken the current fad of blaming and attacking teachers and principals to a new level. Teachers and school leaders are not the enemy!

Paulson contends that “sophomoric speech is free speech too.” He argues that students in two Pennsylvania schools were unjustly suspended for creating mock MySpace profiles featuring photos of their principals. While he admits that “both pages were profane and laden with sexual innuendo. Sample epithets from one: "Big whore" and "big steroid freak." Yet, Paulson insists that this behavior is merely a modern version of wearing a black armband (Tinker v. Des Moines) and that students should not be subject to any consequences or disciplinary action.

Paulson explains that, “While there's no question that these attacks on principals were sophomoric and insulting, we tend to forget that students also have rights. Too often, adults seem to believe that you get handed the Bill of Rights along with your high school diploma; that's not the case. It's tough to defend such insults by teens, but check out the comments section of any online publication and you'll find adults posting abrasive, degrading, racist and sexist opinions, all with the full protection of the First Amendment.”

Surprise! I agree with Mr. Paulson. Students do have free speech rights and they do have the right to print what they like. Likewise, as educators and parents, we have the responsibility to use these teachable moments to make education as meaningful and relevant as possible by connecting classroom learning to real-world situations. Students must learn that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that every cause has an effect, and that every right is accompanied by a responsibility.

Mr. Paulson and I were both educated in the 20^th century and, those of us, myself included, educated in that bygone age have a tendency to believe that all the experiences gained and lessons learned are relevant to today’s schools. Some even believe that their experience working in schools whose goal was to sort students for success has relevance to current schools whose goal is raising all, not some, students to high levels of achievement.

In the good old days scurrilous notes and harmless pranks would reach a limited audience the memories of which faded quickly. There was no permanent record that could be accessed by anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. Today, the success of every student is critically important and everything written and posted on the Internet is permanent. Every computer is a publishing house and every student has the potential to instantly be a best-selling author. It is high time that we all got our heads out of the 20th century where we were educated and put our heads in the 21st century where our children live. Wake up people! It’s a different world out there!

Finally, I have a suggestion for Mr. Paulson. As is your right, create a fake web page or MySpace page under the name of your Chairman, CEO, or any of your Board members. Be sure to include profane, obscene, and slanderous statements about them. For an added touch, add some racist or sexually explicit language. Wait a couple of weeks and contact me to let me know how that worked out for you.

Next: Part 2 of “It’s Payback Time.”

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:37 PM | 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)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post discussing one school district’s decision to drop freshmen Earth Science from its curriculum, Mel Riddile addresses the inherent risks of moving the study of Biology to the ninth grade.  A follow up post addressed the concern that there was a serious disconnect between the science teachers and these decision-makers on this issue. But after talking with some of these teachers there appears to be a larger problem than simply the placement of Biology in the science sequence.

Many Good Arguments

The predicament is clearly drawn.  There are three main high school science curricula that remain after the elimination of Earth Science:  Biology, Physics and Chemistry.  But there is only one senior year.  The biologists will tell you that their subject should be the culminating course because one needs chemistry to truly understand the chemical underpinnings to the study of the living world.  In addition, they will say that physics, which includes the study of the atom and energy, is also essential to a true understanding of biology.  The physicists will counter by arguing that without calculus, their course is fatally flawed.  Moving their class to that final year would give students the ability to understand the mathematical basis of physics.  Chemists, however, will argue that they need to be the exit course since their subject requires mastery of both math and many of the concepts covered in physics.  When discussed separately every view makes sense. 

A Realistic Compromise

Based on the various points of view, keeping the status quo is not the option that will ensure the best science education.  It is unquestionably the easiest path and is certainly the least complicated, but if the goal of a curriculum is to maximize its benefits to the students, serious change must be considered.  The primary considerations are that all three of the classes have valid and compelling reasons to be the culminating science course in high school.  The need for a freshman class covering the topics contained in traditional Earth Science classes is equally legitimate.  After all, two large and lucrative disciplines, geology and meteorology, are studied in a traditional Earth Science course. And finally, in this era of accountability some form of barrier exam must be available to measure student success. 

One idea put forth a number of years ago by several science teachers was a new, innovative freshman science course.  The plan was predicated on placing clusters of four ninth-grade classes within the schools’ master schedule.  The course would be divided into four segments taught by a rotating team of teachers.  Each student would be taught the basics of earth science, biology, chemistry and physics for one quarter of the year.  The topics would be based predominately on the use of the scientific method and would demonstrate the interrelationships of the various disciplines.  Implementing such a course would serve many purposes.  All ninth-graders would be better prepared to understand and appreciate the subsequent science curricula.  This survey freshman course could provide a reasonably dense, rigorous science course effectively producing more mature students with an improved set of study skills. Moreover, the next course, regardless of which one is chosen, could be taught at a higher level since a foundation for the subject matter has been previously established.  Sections designated as “honors” could be created if necessary, although I would argue, based on the success of my former school’s Algebra I  program, that by putting all students into the same classes, the individuals who should be placed in future honors classes would be determined by their actual performance in this setting.  

A Great Way to Start Science

This course would alleviate most of the most critical deficits described by Dr. Riddile.  It would improve student performance in every succeeding high school science class.  It does not, however, address the question of what is the best order to teach the three main science curricula.   A method for dealing with this legitimate issue needs to be addressed if our students are to receive the best science education possible.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:41 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:14 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In one of his recent posts Mel Riddle stated that I was throwing more gasoline onto the fiery discussion of Algebra 1 in the eighth grade.  Ironically his remarks concerning the manipulations of the high school science sequence by a school district ignited quite a firestorm in my own home.  When my wife, a retired Science Department Chair and Biology teacher in that district, read his views questioning the wisdom of removing Earth Science from the curriculum and moving Biology and Chemistry to the ninth and tenth grade her thoughts were, well, combustible.

“What the district did by removing Earth Science was cripple the ability of our at-risk students to pass the Virginia Science SOLs (end of course exams),” she said after reading the post.   “By removing the freshman-level Earth Science exam from the sequence they forced our freshmen to take a sophomore level test (Biology) and our sophomores to take a junior level one (Chemistry).  No wonder our district scores on those two tests were lower than the state average.”  (Editor’s note—those were the only two subjects in the system to have a passing rate lower than the state.)  She shook her head in disbelief.  “In order to be eligible to take the freshman-level Earth Science SOL, students had to be in the newly created Geosystems class.  Geosystems was mandated to be a senior-level course to be taken only after the successful completion of both Biology and Chemistry.”  When the state requirement for graduation included passing at least one science SOL, this new science sequence proved extremely difficult or impossible for students that were most academically at risk.  Furthermore, due to the nature of the Biology SOL with its vocabulary-laden curriculum, our ELL students were at an even greater disadvantage.

“Every year I or some other chair at our district meetings would question this policy and beg them to at least allow us to offer a limited number of freshmen Earth Science classes for this group.  We were consistently told to stop asking the question as the answer would never change.  We were told that the integrity of the new Geosystems course would be at risk if the Earth Science course was reinstituted. 

Her experiences as a classroom Biology 1 teacher were most revealing.  “One thing that was stunning was when a sophomore from another district would transfer into one of my classes.  They were always significantly better prepared to succeed.  Earth Science had always been the “boot camp” for our science students.  It was a great survey course, covered important material and prepared freshmen to learn science.  All of the Biology 1 teachers that I knew had the same experiences.”

Those tenth graders had more of an advantage than one additional science class.  “Their math skills were better since they had an additional year of that subject.  They had a year of high school experiences and expectations behind them—English 9, World History 1, etc.  They were currently in other sophomore-level classes.  For a portion of our students that extra year of maturity was critical to working with the conceptual complexity of Biology the mathematics of Chemistry.”

Poor SOL scores were not the only casualty from this change.  “The entire approach to the curriculum had to be altered.  There was a fifty-question multiple-choice barrier exam waiting at the end of the year.  For many of the students it was now a ‘must-pass’ test.  The Biology SOL was the only state science exam that they had any chance of passing for graduation.  We had to turn much of our attention to vocabulary and fundamentals emphasized on the test rather than being able to actually focus on the really important concepts that should have been central to the biological sciences.”

She continued.  “It is hard to believe that this policy is still in place.  So many students have been hurt.  The weakest have been placed in jeopardy because they struggle to pass what is for them a tough Biology SOL exam.  And the better students have been robbed of being taught Biology and Chemistry at the level those courses deserve. Thoughtful arguments have been made by professional scientists and science educators that biology would best be taught to high school seniors after they have taken at least three years of math and science.  However, I can think of no argument that would justify mandating biology in the freshman year.”  She paused to smile.  “Except maybe a bit of stubbornness and arrogance on the part of some adults”.  

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:13 AM | Permalink

“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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

Collateral Damage

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

On track to nowhere

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

The teacher’s perspective

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:43 AM | Permalink

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

I have some thoughts on the subject for school leaders:

One Size Fits All

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

Hurry Up and Learn

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

The Best or the Best Prepared

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

Screen Them Out or Raise Them Up

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:59 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

An Overview:

Perhaps in keeping with the chronically amped-up political environment of late, the instructional leaders of many school districts have adopted a stump speech mentality when it pertains to enrolling students in Algebra 1 prior to the ninth grade.  Unfortunately, as in politics, simply saying something repetitively does not make it true.  Several years ago, the Washington Post featured two articles on the subject—the first dealing exclusively with 8^th grade Algebra 1  and the second detailing the alarmingly low pass rates on standardized math tests in the middle schools.

In both discussions the response to virtually every question is to move the study of Algebra 1 earlier and earlier in the academic careers of the vast majority of students.  While this solution may look and sound like forward thinking, the reality is less attractive.           

A little bit of history

When I began my career as a high school math teacher in 1968, the traditional math sequence for most students was Algebra 1 in the ninth grade, Geometry in the tenth and then Algebra 2 and some form of Pre-Calculus to complete the high school curriculum.  Within that plan, a format was established to give students who demonstrated early excellence in mathematics the option to reach the level of Calculus by giving them the opportunity to take Algebra 1 in the eighth grade.  This basic plan was the rule for nearly the first half of my career. But slowly the percentage of students taking Algebra 1 in the middle school began to climb.  Such an increase should not be surprising with the advent of better technology and teaching techniques.  However, the practice has now grown to a critical and in my opinion detrimental level.  My former district as well as many others throughout the country is pushing with great enthusiasm the concept of having all students take Algebra 1 by the eighth grade.  One critical moment occurred at a district-wide math department chair meeting in December 2007. The math curriculum specialists announced that they and the district leadership team were firmly committed to this goal.  Their enthusiasm was not contagious.  There was a palpable sense of disagreement with this plan among many of the department chairs--individuals who actually stand in front of math classrooms.  The reluctance to embrace this plan is based on many important reasons.

Should eighth-grade Algebra 1 be enlarged or abolished?

Be assured that there is nothing inherently wrong with students taking Algebra 1 in the eighth grade.  In fact, in some relatively rare cases, there are good reasons to have seventh graders take this class.  I have professional experience to validate such situations.  Ten years ago Rachel was a seventh-grader enrolled in my Honors Pre-Calculus class. This placement equated to taking Algebra 1 in grade four.  And how did Rachel do in this class dominated by talented high school juniors?  Among the 60 students I taught that year she maintained one of the top two averages in overall scores.  On reflection would I be opposed to her math sequence in school?  The answer is obviously not.  This was unquestionably the right course sequence for this remarkable young lady.  However even though she was well qualified to be in this level of math, there were still negative consequences for her course progression.  While her math scores were impeccable, when required to create an essay as to whether math was a discovery or an invention, her seventh grade writing skills failed her.  In this one area, the second best math student between the two classes was suddenly at the bottom.  This shortcoming should not have changed her sequence but only because she was a uniquely exceptional math student.

Last spring the stated plan for the district was to have all students take Algebra 1 prior to the ninth grade. A few months later the goal was placed at a slightly more modest 80%.  Regardless of whether the target is 100% or 80%, the simple fact is that such arbitrary numbers are fraught with hidden consequences.

Who benefits; who suffers?

In any plan that dramatically increases middle school Algebra 1 there are three primary groups of students who need to be considered.  The first subset is the students who are genuinely qualified to be advanced in their math studies.  There is no question that such placement is not only correct but also essential. 

The key question to be asked, though, is what is the definition of “qualified”?  One of the most important issues is why is true mastery of all Algebra 1 skills so critical?  The answer is that math is different from many other subjects.  It is a sequential, skill-based curriculum far more similar to the study of a foreign language or music than to social studies or science.  A student can learn about World War II with a weak understanding of the Civil War and though a good foundation in Biology is helpful it is not critical to success in Physics.  Conversely, undeveloped or weak skills in Algebra 1 will potentially doom student success in every math course that follows.  And these difficulties will grow exponentially over time.  Consequently, the only students who are “qualified” for Algebra 1 in grade 8 are those who can master the entire curriculum at a high level. Placing a large majority of all students into this class will not reach this goal. 

(Next:  By the Numbers—A Revealing Look at Statistics and 8^th Grade Algebra 1)

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:46 PM | Permalink

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)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

The Wrong Solution for the Wrong Problem

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

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

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

Better Arguments

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

Extinction by Improvement

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:38 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

The Facts

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

The Bottom Line

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

Next: Summer School – Part 2

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:53 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Creating the Right Measuring Stick

"Teacher quality is the single most important school factor in student success" - Aspen Institute's Commission on No Child Left Behind

In a recent post, “Get rid of the bad teachers, but who are they?”, Mel Riddile raises a number of critical questions.  He asks whether teachers are born or made, what makes a teacher “good”, and how can we create a mechanism for districts to remove poor educators? 

I believe that good teachers are made not born.  No matter how innately talented, every educator can improve with positive classroom experiences, exposure to effective strategies and the tutelage of other talented educators.  But how can we quantify the quality of our teachers and develop an efficient method to remove those who are under performing?  I believe there is one route that can help with regard to both issues – the evaluation process.  It is a process that with a significant investment of additional time, money and emphasis can both identify ineffective teachers and help others to improve.

A Flawed Procedure

I was evaluated many times in the course of my career.  When I compared my experiences with other teachers there were remarkable similarities.  Every few years an assistant principal would make one prearranged and another unannounced classroom observation.  On average each visit was about twenty minutes in duration and generated four to six pages of educational boilerplate.  The only section I read carefully was entitled “Needs to Improve”.   Unfortunately none of these comments were enlightening.  The most memorable was that I had more males than females in class, a factor I had scant ability to control. 

In some instances the process was a waste of valuable resources.  In my thirty-ninth year of teaching I was evaluated by a young but gifted assistant principal who had four years of experience in social studies.  Though we both laughed good-naturedly about the situation, it was clear that the time and energy we both expended on the process could have been more effectively used in other areas of the school.

The Wrong Person for the Job

But placing the blame on the evaluators is unfair.  The vast majority of assistant principals have to deal with an overwhelming array of responsibilities. One of my most recent evaluators was tasked with the discipline of more than three hundred freshmen, administering three different departments, implementing a plan for state barrier exams, hall duty between change of classes, supervising several extra-curricular and athletic events, interviewing candidates for vacancies and training to oversee the program bridging the middle school to the high school.  All of these jobs were in addition to whatever other crises might arise during the course of a typical day.  It should not be surprising that the process of evaluating teachers especially those with established positive reputations would quickly fall to the bottom of her “to-do” list.  

Putting the “Value” Into Evaluation

There was, however, one evaluation I found extremely productive.  It was the process employed by my district during its brief dalliance with “merit pay”.  A great deal of thought and resources had been put into this evaluation procedure and those efforts resulted in the most instructive, detailed and sophisticated assessment of my career.  Based on that experience I believe that a modified form of this evaluation would be an excellent model for building a more effective plan. So how would an effective high school performance evaluation system work?

Three professionals would form a teacher’s evaluation team.  One (generalist) would be a highly trained observer who is thoroughly versed in the fundamentals of good teaching.  Another (curriculum specialist) would have similar training but would have taught in the subject field being observed.  The third would be a local assistant principal.  The generalists and curriculum specialists would be full time positions in the district.  These individuals would be required to have at least ten years of successful teaching experience in addition to the intensive training.  Retired teachers could be an outstanding and economical talent pool for these positions. 

The process would be intense.  It would consist of five formal observations.  The generalist and specialist would have two announced and two unannounced.  The local assistant principal would have one unannounced.  All observations would encompass the entire class period.  The two announced would be videotaped and the film would be a central component in post-observation conferences.  Each video would also be available to the other members of the team.  When appropriate, standardized test scores and failure rates would be included in the overall assessment.  Evaluators will, of course, be carefully trained in analyzing such data and how to utilize it in a fair, accurate manner.  At the end of the process, the three observers would meet and create the overall rating that would then be shared with the teacher. 

One of the critical components of the system must be the ability to efficiently terminate poor teachers.  To expedite this outcome and to maximize resources the major focus would be on the early part of a teacher’s career.  It is unrealistic to assume that teachers will either significantly improve after three or four years of mediocrity or that a successful educator would suddenly become ineffective after two decades of exemplary work.  Thus, the most intense focus would be during a teacher’s early years.    During the first three years, ineffective teachers must be terminated or mentored.  Those who complete these probationary years would continue the evaluation process every third year in a modified form.  At this point the evaluation would be the three unannounced visits.  Individuals who have at least twenty years of successful service can opt out of required evaluations.  Teachers would also have the option of choosing to be evaluated in off years.  The optional process would be the three unannounced visits.  And why would anyone choose to voluntarily be evaluated?  If the process were truly effective, many educators would welcome such scrutiny as a path toward professional improvement. 

The performance of students is a direct reflection of the quality of their teachers.  To ensure that only the best educators are in our classrooms a strong effective system of evaluation needs to be in place.  This process should have three essential outcomes.  It must clearly define the performance level of teachers, serve as a learning tool for improvement, and provide the foundation for the removal of under achieving personnel in a timely manner.  The immediate financial investment should not be a deal breaker.  Not when the rewards – quality teachers - are so critical to student success.

Next:  Determining the best candidates

(For more thoughts on improving teachers you might be interested in Ensuring New Teachers Become Old Ones: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3  Also in the April 26 Washington Post Jay Mathews discusses the issue of evaluation and creating better teachers in “Explosive book for a new teacher generation”)

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:22 AM | Permalink