"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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The test scores for the Washington D.C. schools are in and while they are generally disappointing what is more informative is the fact they clearly demonstrate one of the fundamental causes of low academic performance—poverty.

This is not a new or original discovery.  Mel Riddile organized data clearly indicating that the U.S. scores on the most recent PISA tests were far more about socio-economic issues than poor teaching.  But these numbers from the Nation’s Capitol place an exclamation mark on his assertions.

A quick tour of Washington D.C.

I once heard someone say that zip codes are the best predictors of standardized test scores.  Three of the eight wards in the District of Columbia reinforce the validity of that comment.

Ward 3:  has a median household income of $97,690 and less than 4% of families with minor children are below the poverty line.  

Ward 7:  More than one-third (34%) of families with minor children live in poverty, and the median household income is $34,966.

Ward 8:  The poorest of the city’s eight areas where two of every five children (40%) have incomes below poverty level and the median household income is $31,188.

A comparison of scores

The elementary and secondary math pass rates in Ward 3 indicate that students scored more than 40 points higher than those in Ward 7 and 50 more than Ward 8­. Test results in different subject areas parallel those of mathematics.

But there are other areas that demonstrate the imbalance between rich and poor.  Using the city’s own criteria for teaching excellence, the IMPACT evaluation, the vast majority of the higher rated educators gravitate to the wealthier areas.  Only 71 of the top 663 teachers in the system worked at 41 schools located In Ward 7 and Ward 8.  That represents an average of less than two per school.  In the ten Ward 3 schools there were 135 of these educators placing on average more than 13 highly effective teachers per building.

A vicious cycle of failure

These statistics underscore what is already known.  Students at poor schools do not perform as well as those at wealthy ones.  It also emphasizes that in an era of accountability based in large part on these results, a preponderance of the top educators in a district will migrate to the more well-to-do buildings.  School leaders need to recognize this disparity and address it by offering incentives for top level administrators and teachers to work at low-performing schools. These could include both financial rewards and a different and enlightened approach to measuring progress in test results in areas that traditionally do poorly.

Otherwise, the academic story in Washington D.C. will continue to be a microcosm of entire country.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:13 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post, Mel Riddile highlighted several of the shortcomings associated with the latest method for determining graduation rates mandated by the U.S. Department of Education.  While the goal of this policy is worthy—standardizing the calculations throughout the nation—the resulting process is flawed, unfair and ultimately inaccurate.  The two key problems are an arbitrary time frame and an unrealistic as well as potentially punitive accounting for transfer students. 

Simple does not equal accurate

The ultimate goal of a graduation rate should be to measure a school’s effectiveness in producing successful students.  One of the reasons why the accuracy of this statistic has been so elusive is that it depends on so many variables.   In attempting to simplify the process, the Department of Education has built a method of measurement that will make for easy computations but misleading results.  What this overhaul ignores is that schools with high rates of poverty, mobility and ELL populations will be evaluated on information that does not truly reflect the academic performance occurring in their building. Dr. Riddile explained the problems with this new system from the perspective of a principal.  Here are three stories to illustrate the view from inside the classroom.

Easy come, easy go

In schools with high mobility the percentage of students who spend their entire academic careers at the same location can be surprisingly small.  My former school had an annual mobility rate of about 30% meaning that approximately one of every three students left during a typical year.  But during that time the size of the student body was extremely stable.   With remarkable consistency virtually every individual who moved to a new district or returned to their home country would be offset by someone coming in the opposite direction.  I once taught an introductory ELL course, Individual Math 1, which began the year with 24 students and finished with the same number.  Only one-half of those students were enrolled for the entire course.  This level of movement is not a reflection of the quality of education being provided; rather, it reveals the nature of the student body.  Consequently, under the new Department of Education guidelines while the actual instruction in that classroom may have been excellent, the dropout rate of these ninth-graders bordered on 50%.   Clearly labeling unverified transfer students as dropouts places an unfair burden on such schools.   The alternative, precise tracking of all of these individuals as mandated by this plan, would be far too costly in terms of time and energy. 

A tale of two graduates

Maria was in my Algebra 1 class.  She was smart, hardworking, reliable and the mother of a one-year old son.  Her boyfriend (soon to be her husband) and the baby lived with her family while she completed high school.  During her freshman year she made a detour to give birth but when she returned the next year there was no request for special treatment.  She passed my class and all of her other classes.   After five years at the school marched across the stage at graduation.  When I last heard from her she was an assistant manager at a bank.  While the data may label her as a drop-out, I can promise you she was not.

Michelle, my second example, was a quiet and petite member of my Pre-calculus class.   A refugee from Viet Nam she did not look like a 22-year-old.   But the path to her senior year of high school was very different than most.  What should have been her middle school years were spent either on a boat or in a prisoner of war camp.  When she finally arrived in this country she had the life experiences of an adult and the education of a child.  As a 17-year-old “freshman” she had to overcome language and emotional difficulties few others could even imagine.  Despite these immense challenges she succeeded in a college preparatory curriculum to earn a diploma as she approached her 23^rd birthday.  Though her story was far from traditional it deserved positive recognition by any legitimate measure.

Numbers cannot measure everything

As a mathematician, I would love to be able to state that every human endeavor can be measured quantitatively.  Unfortunately such precision is not always possible.  Even baseball, the most data driven sport on the planet, cannot evaluate simply on numbers. Every pitch, every swing of the bat, every spit is recorded, calculated and documented.  But despite this wealth of statistical data there are players in baseball who need to be seen to be appreciated.  There are no precise metrics to measure breaking up a double play, diving to catch balls, sprinting on every play or simply being unselfish. 

Formulating a simple yet accurate device for determining high school graduation rates is equally difficult.  What many of the educational policy makers may not understand is that the diversity of a student body is not just about ethnicity, religion or socioeconomic status.  It also includes both the time required to graduate and the stability of their residency.  This most recent attempt by the Department Education is clearly not the answer. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:25 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

Schools were held accountability.

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

Students were held accountable.

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

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

Teachers were not held individually accountable.

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

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

Why Do We Need Merit Pay?

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

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

What Teachers Really Want

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:08 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

The latest attempt

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

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

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

Use money to reward not to motivate

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

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

There may be a better way

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:52 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, the study found:

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

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

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

Essential Question

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:11 AM | Permalink

"School districts, because they want the money, are finding creative ways to meet the requirements of the law."--Gerald N. Tirozzi, Executive Director, NASSP

You have probably heard the saying, "Principals don't retire. They just lose their faculties." Apparently, in Minnesota, where "ousted principals quickly find new jobs," as well as in many other states, fired principals simply get new faculties.

Dollar Chase Leads to Musical Chairs

District leaders were shaken when they learned that, in order to qualify for school improvement grant (SIG) funds, they would have to replace the school's principal. Three of the four school reform models called for the replacement of the principal. The idea of firing principals when few replacements were available, particularly in rural and inner-city schools, was inconceivable. However, district leaders quickly found a loophole. Instead of firing principals, districts simply transferred them within the district. According to the AP, "of 19 Minnesota schools in 12 districts that were awarded more than $24 million found that only a handful of principals have left education administration. The AP interviewed nearly a dozen school leaders, reviewed school board minutes and media reports and sought out displaced principals by phone and through web searches."

More False Assumptions

I have written before about the false assumptions that underlie current "school reform" models. Note, that, in order to propose firing teachers and principals and closing struggling schools, one would have to believe all of the following false assumptions:

1. "Merit pay" for teachers will improve student performance. One does not have to look far into the research to discover that there is no basis for merit pay improving teaching.

2. Experienced principals and teachers are anxious to work in high-poverty, struggling schools. High-poverty schools serving high percentages of under-resourced students have the least experienced teachers and administrators and the highest turnover. The retention rates for principals at low-performing schools and schools with high concentrations of poor students are even worse. "Twenty percent of newly hired principals at secondary schools with a high proportion of low-income students leave after a year."

3. The best teachers want to teach the neediest students. We already know that high-poverty schools have fewer applicants and higher teacher turnover. However, within the typical school, a pecking order exists among the teaching staff. Because the most experienced teachers have "earned the right" to teach the most desirable courses, those teachers typically teach the best students in the smallest classes. Conversely, the newest teachers teach the neediest students in the largest classes. Principals often struggle to convince experienced teachers to teach those students most in need.

4. There is an abundant supply of experienced master teachers and skilled administrators. Top schools compete for top teachers and the struggling schools get the leftovers, if there are any. A friend once said to me, "It isn’t about school leadership. It is about hiring the best teachers. That’s the key to improving schools.

All you have to do is hire great teachers.” I turned to my friend and said,  “Who do you think recruits, interviews, hires, and trains your great teachers? Teaching is a profession, and professionals learn and grow from experience. Teachers don’t walk into schools with all the skills and knowledge that they will ever need. Teaching is learning. All new teachers must rely on mentors and advisors, most of whom are provided by the principal.” Some believe that anyone could teach. These "anyone can teach" proponents incorrectly believe that experience does not matter. Why else would they propose hiring teachers who have only five weeks of training. Of course, inexperienced teachers are good enough for other people's children, but they would never be good enough for the children of the school reform experts.

Rural schools have the same supply problem that urban schools have. "Rural superintendents have had trouble for years recruiting principals (and teachers), let alone for the toughest schools. Urban and suburban districts pay better. Rural areas often don't provide a second job for two-career couples. The rural lifestyle often doesn't appeal to urbanites. And with the housing market downturn, top candidates often don't want to sell at a loss and buy new homes in small towns."

5. Schools are struggling because teachers and administrators are incompetent. If that were the case, why, when they had the perfect excuse to get rid of them, would the same district hire back incompetent principals? First, these people are not incompetent. Second, the reasons for schools struggling are more about poverty, the surrounding communities, and the under-resourced families and students they serve than it is about incompetent teachers and principals.

Who can we trust?

The more I read and research, the less I trust that we are or will be told the truth. You may recall the controversy over the PISA scores, which, according to "so-called experts," indicated that our schools were failing because our students scored in the middle of the international pack. In fact, in "It's Poverty Not Stupid," I pointed out that, our low-poverty schools are the highest performing in world.

We all want our schools to improve. False assumptions and half-truths only serve to distract us from the real challenge that we and other developed nations face--raising the performance of under-resourced students so that they have a chance to lead a happy, productive, and prosperous life.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:25 AM | Permalink

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

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

Background

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

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

Demographics

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

Why pay teachers $125,000 a year?

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

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

How are TEP teachers different?

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

Student Engagement

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

Closing the Achievement Gap

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

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

Where does the money come from?

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

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

Teacher Evaluation

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

Expectations of Teachers

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

Students Say

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

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

Teachers on Teaching

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

Tenure: If you have a pulse

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

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

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

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

Can TEP be scaled up?

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

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

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

Criteria for Evaluating Teachers

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

Does More Mean Better?

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

Disappointing Results

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

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

It takes time!

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

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

My Thoughts

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:27 PM | Permalink

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

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

Student Achievement or Adult Convenience

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

A Testimonial

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

Research: Science says, "Let them sleep."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:13 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:10 PM | Permalink

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

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

Student-Focused

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:30 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Many school districts have decided to have remediation sessions during the school day. This approach adversely impacts the vast majority of students and needs to be replaced.

“There is no limit to what you learn about schools if you listen to teachers.”   When I saw this opening sentence to a recent article by Jay Mathews in the Washington Post I was pleased to see that he and I were in agreement on a valuable but underutilized source of educational information.  Those pleasant thoughts quickly faded into the background, however, as I continued to read.   Mr. Mathews’ teacher-based information was concerning a district-wide plan for high school “recess” and one school’s implementation.  I soon found myself muttering “What in the world are they thinking?”

In theory the initiative is simple.  In an effort to decrease failures on end-of-course barrier exams in May, the school day is interrupted twice a week for 45 minutes to allow students to do independent work.  Unfortunately the actual results appear to be missing their intended target.  According to one teacher in the building “…students get 90 free minutes a week, which they can use to find dates for Saturday night or check basketball scores if they want…(too many are) socializing, surfing the Internet or - I am not kidding - watching TV in the cafeteria, all during the school day when parents assume their children are in class.”

The principal of the school has a different take saying “most students do homework, work on group projects or enrich their studies. It helps teachers to be creative…even if some students just look for imaginative ways to goof off.”

Even if the truth lies somewhere in between these two views, the overall plan would seem to be counterproductive and not the best approach to solving the proposed problem.  On average only 10% of the student body at this school fail the exams in question.   In a free-form activity period a significant portion of this group does not utilize the time effectively.  Based on administrative data these sessions have reduced the number of “D” and “F” grades by about one-third.  That number would translate into a benefit for a little less than four percent of the student body.  Meanwhile 90 minutes of dedicated class time has been lost each week for the other nine out of ten students.

Far too precious to waste

For months both Mel Riddile and I have written about the importance of providing students and teachers adequate time.  On numerous occasions the discussion has focused on the need to expand the school day, week and year.  And yet this district has decided to reduce class time in an attempt to assist a very small and in many cases reluctant portion of the student community. 

The teacher in the article has calculated that the missing 90 minutes each week translates into a loss of ten days of school.  While removing the equivalent of two weeks of instructional time will have severe adverse effects on many students in actuality the outcomes are even worse.   An extensive unsupervised break in the middle of a school day will destroy momentum and focus in the typical classroom.  Ask any teacher what happens after a fire alarm, pep rally or school assembly.  What they will tell you is that it takes a significant amount of time to get many of their students back on task.   Such hidden costs are inevitable after a 45-minute “recess”.

A better approach for all

For nearly a decade my former school had a very different method for remediating students in the four core subject areas.  We developed the After School Academic Program (ASAP).   It was a plan that was voluntary for teachers and mandatory for students.  A measure of the success of ASAP was the fact that nearly 90% of all eligible teachers participated and many in non-core subjects requested the opportunity to be included.  Parents would call guidance counselors to request that their children be part of the program.  Perhaps the ultimate positive statement was made by those students who requested to remain in ASAP even after their grades had improved sufficiently to allow them to depart. 

The plan was not complicated.  Teachers would target failing students who would benefit from an additional thirty to forty-five minutes of after school instruction each week.  Individuals who were receiving poor grades for attendance or discipline issues would be excluded since this program would not address their specific needs.  A list of students was compiled and an administrator would assign each student to an afternoon session that would begin within fifteen minutes of the end of the day.

Late buses were provided to give transportation home if needed and all extra-curricular activities could not begin until ASAP concluded.   The consequences for not attending—administrative detention (no teacher involvement)—were consistent, enforced and effective.  The program was conducted within teacher contract time. 

Any similar approach would be vastly superior to the one described in Mr. Mathews’ article.  All students and teachers would benefit from the return of those missing 90 minutes.  The students who need extra attention from the staff would be the recipients of an additional period of focused instructional time.  The school day would be molded to better fit the needs of the entire student body. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 07:52 PM | Permalink

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:10 PM | Permalink

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

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

1. Attempt too many initiatives.

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

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

3. Provide one-shot training.

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

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

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

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

What or How?

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

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

It's not just schools

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

Recommendations for School Leaders:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:10 PM | Permalink

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

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

Ask the teachers!

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

What affects consistency in reporting?

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

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

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

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

Pressure to avoid negative labels

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

School Discipline and Grey Areas

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

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

Data can be misleading

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:01 PM | Permalink

According to a report issued today by America's Promise Alliance, over the last decade, the nation's high schools have made significant progress in reducing dropouts and improving graduation rates. The report is part of "Grad Nation," which is part of a comprehensive, "10-year campaign to mobilize the nation as never before to reverse the dropout crisis and enable our children to be prepared for success in college, work and life."

Here are some of the highlights from Building A Grad Nation:

• The national graduation rate improved from 72% to 75%.
• 29 states demonstrated significant gains.
• Vermont and Wisconsin were the first states to reach a 90% graduation rate.
• Graduation rates for minority students--African American, Hispanic, Native American--improved the most.
• There are 261 fewer dropout factories (high schools with promoting power of 60% or less).
• 400,000 fewer students attend dropout factories.
• 25 of the 100 largest school districts had a 10% or greater increase in graduation rate.
• 12 states raised the compulsory school age.
• 47 states now have longitudinal data systems that will monitor students over time.
• 3 states have early warning systems.

Bottom Line

School leaders and teachers are to be congratulated for our efforts in turning the corner on the dropout crisis. However, we need to be aware that expectations are rising and the bar has been raised. The federal government now requires states to use the standard four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate that reflects the number of students who receive a diploma four years after they begin high school. I will have more to come on graduation rates and accountability as well as "early warning indicators."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:52 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rubber Room

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

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

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

If they have what it takes

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

You are a principal?

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

We can’t wait for Superman

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:51 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

A Culture Shift

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

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

The Role of the State

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

The Role of Law Enforcement

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

The Role of the Courts

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

The Role of the District

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

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

Next: The Role of the School in Improving Student Attendance

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:30 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

The Right Incentives

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:40 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

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

Changes that make a difference

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:00 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Is Merit Pay the Answer?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:43 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Misconception Number 1

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

Misconception Number 2

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

Misconception Number 3

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

Improving education is complicated.

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:23 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:54 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for school leaders

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

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

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

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

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

Responsible change takes hard work, patience and time!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:53 PM | Permalink

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

Every Grade

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

The Funding Gap

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

Not ready for prime time

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

Graduation and Dropouts

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

Range of Learners

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

Size and Complexity

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

Systemic Failure

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:44 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

A Free Personalization Resource

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:17 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exit Exams

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

Subjects Tested

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

End-of-course Exams

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

Graduation Requirements

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:33 AM | Permalink

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)

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

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

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

Principal’s Perspective

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

The New Equation

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:01 PM | Permalink

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

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

Gates on Reform

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

Gates on Teaching

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

Gates on Improving Teaching

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:20 PM | Permalink

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

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

Focus is power

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:52 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:14 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

A State of Mind

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

Know One When You See One

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

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

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

Be a leader not a bureaucrat!

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:38 AM | Permalink

According to a recent study, from 2003 to 2007, the turnover rate for Chicago principals was 73%, meaning that 61% of the lowest performing elementary schools have had three or more principals since 2000. Likewise, researchers Ed Fuller and Michelle Young examined data on Texas public schools from 1996 through 2008. They found that only 50% of newly hired principals stay on the job for three years. Seventy percent leave before their five-year anniversary.

The researchers point out that the impact of principal turnover on the schools is devastating:

• Principals assigned to low-performing schools generally are less experienced
• They received their training from less selective programs
• Inexperienced, under-qualified principals tend not to stick around long;
• They are less adept attracting and hiring the best teachers.
• They have high teacher turnover because they good at retaining well-qualified teachers.
• They are likely to be replaced by yet another inexperienced, under-qualified principal

Speaking before the Texas House Public Education Committee, Fuller testified that, “A “revolving door” pattern among principals makes it difficult for most reform efforts to gain traction. For high-needs schools, the average principal needs to remain in place for four to five years at the elementary level and five to seven years at the secondary level, Fuller says, adding that it takes a minimum of three years on average for principals to make a “substantial, lasting difference.” The larger the school, the longer it takes,” Fuller says. “The longer the school has been without a stable principal, the longer it takes. The greater the teacher turnover, the longer it takes. The lower the achievement, the longer it takes.”

Furthermore, Fuller pointed out that “Contrary to popular belief, principals do not leave because of low pay, but because they feel “micromanaged” by central office staff or they lack the necessary resources to be successful. They also report frustration with a rigorous and punitive accountability system. “Principals get really frustrated when that happens,” Fuller says. “They don’t have the tools and autonomy to do their jobs well.” Surprisingly, characteristics such as race, age, gender, rural versus urban districts, and certification test results had a negligible impact on retention.”

Let me get this straight. The poorest schools attract the least experienced principals who, in turn, attract the least experienced teachers, and the least experienced principals leave earlier, which results in more teacher turnover.

And the national strategy to turn around the lowest performing schools is to perpetuate the turnover problem by creating more turnover? Furthermore, principals have only two years instead of the four to seven years needed to improve student performance before they must be replaced. How do you think that will work out?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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

Results

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

Here is what you need to know about KIPP schools:

Additional Instructional Time

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

Required Parent Involvement

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

Student Mobility

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

Mastery

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

Demographics

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

A Principal’s Perspective

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

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

KIPP schools reinforce two key principles of raising student performance:

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

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

A few week’s ago, I ran across a retired teacher, who had built a nationally recognized music program. He and I had worked together, and I had the pleasure of being his administrator and one of his biggest supporters. He was a true showman and I had the distinct pleasure of attending many of his outstanding student performances. Many of his students went on to musical careers because of his outstanding teaching.

I asked him how his successor was doing. He turned to me and said, “I have the feeling that he is driving my car down the highway.” Without hesitation, I replied, “I hope he is. After all, the greatest compliment that he could pay you, his teacher and mentor, was to carry on the legacy of excellence that you built.” He looked at me and smiled. “I never thought about it that way.” I said, “How would you feel if the program that you had worked so hard to build, died a slow death?”

Jay Mathews’ tribute to retiring Wakefield High School Principal, Doris Jackson, is a fitting testimonial to the power of the teacher-student relationship and how that relationship can have a positive impact on a school for a decade. Wakefield High School’s former principal, Marie Djouadi, was a highly respected principal who led Wakefield from a school that was condemned and criticized to the ranks of the highly commended. When her assistant, Doris Jackson, took over in 2002, she had big shoes to fill. I worked in two different schools that bordered Wakefield. So, I had a number of opportunities to talk with Doris, and I can tell you, that she was all business from the get go.

Wakefield High School, located in Arlington, Virginia has the odds stacked against it. It is a high-poverty, urban school with a diverse, highly mobile student population. Approximately half of the students are low-income. The school is 85% minority--47 percent Hispanic, 27 percent black, 15 percent white and 11 percent Asian. In addition, Wakefield has a large number of second language (ELL) students who come from over 60 countries and speak more than forty languages.

Fast-forward eight years and Doris Jackson has not only sustained what Marie had started, but she paid the ultimate compliment to her teacher--she took the school to another, higher level. President Obama delivered a nationally televised speech from Wakefield last year. It is no accident that the President chose Wakefield as the site for his speech. Despite many risk factors including a decaying physical plant, Wakefield has become a beacon of hope for under-resourced schools across the country.

Referring to Doris Jackson as “one of the nation’s most imaginative and resourceful principals,” the article listed some of her many innovations and accomplishments including the following:

• The College Board Inspiration Award for outstanding work in preparing students for college and beyond.
• Top 2% of all high schools in Advanced Placement participation
• 37% pass rate, more than twice the national average, on Advanced Placement exams.
• The only public, non-magnet high school in the Washington metro area to require a senior project
• Met adequate yearly progress
• A strong focus on ninth grade

Great Schools Have Great Leaders

Leaders grow leaders! The test of a great leader is what happens when they are gone. While no change is permanent, at least in Wakefield’s case, the work of Marie Djouadi was carried on and further extended by her successor, Doris Jackson. Hopefully, Doris’ assistant principal, Chris Willmore, will carry on the work and continue the legacy of excellence at Wakefield High School.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Congress is considering $23 billion in new legislation designed to avert massive teacher layoffs around the country. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, in a letter to Congressional leaders wrote, "We are gravely concerned that ongoing state and local budget challenges are threatening hundreds of thousands of teacher jobs for the upcoming school year." The problem is that most of the districts have already made their cuts and the departing teachers have already made other plans.

I have always said that the worst job in the world is being a principal when school budgets are being cut. It is hard enough to lead a school and raise student achievement, but in difficult economic times like these, it can become overwhelming. Even though school staff and resources are reduced, the expectations for improving student achievement continue to go up—more with less.

The Staffing Dilemma

Staffing a large high school can be a daunting task. For us, the process started in January and carried on through the first or second week in October. Staffing takes months of staff time meeting, collaborating, setting priorities, and making plans, all of which usually have to be redone several times because of changing district formulas and funding streams. In bad budget times like these, the changes can come almost weekly.

In April, principals had to hand deliver “termination of employment” letters to teacher who may not be rehired because of budget shortfalls. Even though those individuals were almost always rehired, handing them the letter was painful to me and frightening to them. I must admit that, once I handed a teacher one of those letters, our relationship was never quite the same.

Sleepless Nights

I dreaded the beginning of each school year. Don’t get me wrong. I looked forward to the excitement of starting all over again, but I dreaded the possibility of losing more staff.

Our district staffed on enrollment projections released in March of the previous school year. On the fifth day of the new school year, schools submitted enrollment figures and, as a result, either lost or gained staff. This often would result in teachers moving between schools after the third or fourth week of school. Moving around teachers in the beginning of a school year creates chaos in the schools. The entire master schedule has to be redone. Teaching assignments are changed. Worst of all, weeks of valuable instructional time are lost while students get used to new teachers.

This practice was begun in the 1960s and continues to this day. This is a classic example of what I call an ABC practice—Administration By Convenience.

For schools with low student mobility rates, those projections were almost always correct. However, our school had a very high 30% mobility rate.

In most high schools, incoming students include the new ninth grade class and a few upperclassmen, who move or transfer. So, about 25% to 30% of the students in a typical high school are new to the school each year. In our school, 48% of the students were new each year, and we had a 15% to 17% turnover in students over the summer months. In other words, we had no idea how many students would show up nor did we know who the new students were. We didn’t know what grade they were in. We didn’t know if they needed a reading course or special education services. If more students than expected enrolled, we added teachers. If fewer students enrolled, we cut teaching positions.

I dreaded the thought of telling a teacher, who we just recruited, that she didn’t have a job. I also believed that it was unethical to hire someone when there was a 50/50 chance that they would have a job. So, like many of my colleagues in high-poverty, high-mobility schools, where staffing was like rolling the dice, I held back positions, meaning that I didn’t fill all the allotted positions. Holding back positions meant that we were sometimes hiring teachers in September. You don’t have to be an expert to understand that, in September, you are typically hiring those who others did or would not hire. This is no way to build capacity or improve your teaching staff.

This kind of district policy puts principals between a proverbial rock and a hard place. It is unethical to hire someone, and ask them to relocate to take a position that may not exist. On the other hand, it is irresponsible to knowingly wait to hire teachers in September and put your school at the end of the hiring line. So, you are either unethical or irresponsible. In this scenario, no one wins.

The Bottom Line

These types of staffing practices exacerbate the impact of budget cuts on schools with high numbers of under-resourced students. The schools in more affluent areas usually have more stable or even growing student populations, while schools in older, diverse, or high-poverty areas have a more transient population. Again, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

How can we say that we are serious about improving student achievement when we insist on holding on to antiquated district practices that were developed in an age in which schools sorted students for success?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:19 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)

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

On the Front Lines of Schools pointed out that two of three teachers surveyed do not believe that all students can or should be held to high standards. The report concluded that what we have been calling the achievement gap might, in reality, be the “expectation gap.” According to The Teacher Leader, the expectation gap is not confined to those who work in schools, but extends to district offices and beyond.

In Lead, Follow, or Accuse Someone Else, The Teacher Leader describes how district staff investigated his school because they could not believe that those poor, disadvantaged, mostly second language students could actually achieve at such high levels. You may recall that this happened to another famous math teacher, Jaime Escalante. His inspirational story, as told in the movie, Stand and Deliver, was another example of under-resourced students and high math  achievement. Escalante’s AP Calculus students passed the AP Calculus Exam at such a high rate that he, too, was investigated.

What you don’t know is that several years prior to the investigation, The Teacher Leader’s school, Stuart High School, was labeled a “failing school” in the Washington Post. Ironically, it wasn’t the Post that called Stuart a “failing school,” but the Superintendent of the district. Ironically, only a few years later that same Superintendent’s staff could not accept that that failing school could succeed.

Those who accused The Teacher Leader are the same people that will swear that they are for equity and high levels of achievement for all students. Yet, when the students actually succeeded they could not accept that “those kids” could actually do better than their own children. Apparently, they expected Stuart students do achieve poorly, but they didn’t want them to do so poorly that they would draw negative attention to the “high performing district.”

I should know, because I was the principal at Stuart for nine years. As long as our school was at the bottom of the pack, everything was as it should be. As long as we were a “failing school” the district had its scapegoat. However, when our school started outperforming more affluent schools, the powers that be starting making comments to me like “you must be hiding kids” and “you must be watering down the courses.” However, I had gained enough “street cred” that they left us alone. But as soon as I departed from the school, the naysayers pounced on the new principal and staff. One of the teachers wrote to a reporter who, in turn, called me. I started checking into things, but as soon as the district got wind that press was on to them, the “investigation” was abruptly terminated. In fact, even though I no longer worked in the district, I received a written apology about the incident of which I officially had no knowledge.

As I indicated in a recent post, I was told by more than one district official that our school never received the kind of recognition that it deserved because no one wanted a “school like that with students like those” to be the face of the district. It simply was “not good for business.”

There are two negative forces in play here. First, the “doubting Thomas’s” continue to hold on to their 20^th Century-style low expectations for high poverty students. They say they want them to succeed, but it turns out that they really wish that they wanted them to succeed. I believe that, in their hearts, they really want the students to succeed, but because they have never seen it, they cannot believe it will ever really happen.

Second, this story illustrates why districts and schools must be in alignment. They must be partners, not adversaries. Without that type of alignment, school turnaround will be impossible to achieve. As long as district staff believe that any change efforts must be their own ideas, that they must be proven right, and that they must get the credit, real, lasting change is impossible.

My biggest obstacle as a principal was not the teachers, students, parents, or school board, or even the superintendent. My biggest obstacle was the district staff. The same people that could not accept our high math scores are the very same people who, years before had tried to prevent me from conducting a school wide, diagnostic reading assessment. They are the same people who, in front of my fellow principals, accused me of being aligned with the “phonics people” on the school board. They are the same people that raised criteria to almost impossible heights to prevent our school from getting support for a modified school year calendar. They are the same people who pounded their fists on the table demanding that I raise our test scores, but when I asked them how, they said, “That’s what we hired you to do and if you can’t do it we will find someone who can.”

Consider The Teacher Leader’s situation. He spent his entire 40-year career in one school, Stuart. Over the years he saw the demographics and status of the school change dramatically. His entire adult life and professional identity were tied inextricably to the school. Like everyone else, he read the “failing school” story in the Post. But, instead of giving up or blaming the students, he and his teachers pulled off the “Algebra Miracle.” However, instead of being praised as a hero, he was accused of cheating.

Several years ago, two high-ranking government officials asked me about the chances for turning around our schools. My response then is the same as it is today. Unless we can get the adults to believe that all students can achieve at high levels, it will never become a reality. It is not the kids who are the problem. The problem exists in the minds and hearts of the adults.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In his recent post, “The Algebra Miracle”, Mel Riddile wrote of the daunting complexity of implementing a radical approach to solving high failure rates in high school Algebra 1.  Riddile noted many factors that are necessary for such change but emphasized that there must be a high degree of support at every level of the school staff.

“The Teacher Leader was willing to pay the price to set up both students and teachers for success…A successful school wide initiatives like the Algebra Project requires that multiple leaders work in partnership. Without a strong, respected and trusted teacher leader the math teachers would never have bought in. The principal had to lend full and active support with parents, counselors, other departments in the school, and the school district all of which had different reasons for questioning the approach. The head counselor had to convince the counselors that the much more complicated scheduling and re-scheduling process would be worth the time and effort. Any weakness among any of the three leaders would have ensured that the effort failed.”

In previous postings I have addressed in broad terms the steps that were essential to acquire this wide spread cooperation.  But as Riddile relates, these negotiations required a significant degree of persistence, personal contact and honest dialogue.  Below is a significantly more detailed history of what was required to make the “Algebra Project” a reality.  

Starting At the Beginning

The original idea of eliminating a separate Algebra 1 Part 1 program began long before the implementation of state end-of-course barrier exams.  At a district math department chair meeting the Math Instructional Coordinator noted that there was a high failure rate in Algebra 1 by students who had taken Part 1 the previous year.  Even individuals receiving high marks in Part 1 were struggling to pass at the succeeding level.  He shared his belief that this situation was the direct result of the “watered down” nature of the Part 1 course.  These sentiments reinforced every observation I had made about the situation.  At the twenty-year mark of my teaching career there was little doubt that the student outcomes in high school Algebra 1 were dismal.  Algebra 1 Part 1 students were labeling themselves as mathematical incompetents.  For many of these individuals such branding became a self-fulfilling prophecy.  In addition, their isolation from students who could serve as role models for classroom success lessened their ability to change the trajectory of their math future.   Of even greater concern was the fact that placing a student in Part 1 could be a seminal event for the remainder of their math education.  Relocating a misplaced Part 1 student to Algebra 1 needed to take place within the first three weeks of school.  If this identification is not made quickly such transfers were usually unsuccessful.  Consequently, placement in Part 1 regardless of a person’s potential put their futures in jeopardy.  These students would not only be one additional year behind their peers, they were going to receive an inferior math foundation upon which to build.   This placement was far too important to be determined solely by one’s performance in seventh and eighth grade math.

Building a New Model  

I solicited the assistance of the Coordinator to try to find a way to change the system.  Another department chair from a neighboring school joined us in the quest.   Many meetings were to follow.   We created a blueprint for our new program and then consulted teachers, assistant principals, principals and district leaders for their input.  A plan was finalized.  At the beginning of the year students designated for either Algebra 1 or Part 1 were all placed into Algebra 1.  Six weeks into the second half of the school year, everyone who was failing the course was reclassified as Part 1 students with a modified grading scale that reflected a commensurate grade for their work in terms of this less demanding course.  (For example, an average of 48—normally well below passing—would translate into a “B” for the Part 1 credit).  This procedure was explained to the students and parents before the year began.  The teacher nightmare referred to by Riddile—a disconsolate student sitting in a room during the spring with no hope of receiving a passing grade—had virtually disappeared.  Under this system in March nearly every student in these classes had a passing grade either in Algebra 1 or Part 1.  Plus all students had been exposed to a genuine Algebra 1 course.  One other change that was unique to our school was the creation of Algebra 1 Part 2 classes for the students who received Part 1 credit.  As opposed to placing these individuals into a regular Algebra 1, this separate course allowed teachers to emphasize the second half of the Algebra 1 curriculum.  

Better But Not Best

During the next three years, while the academic results at my school were quite good, the teachers found it increasingly difficult to conduct what were basically two different classes in the same room.  At the other school the chair had transferred and the program was soon phased out.  We chose a much different approach.  If the problem was the very disparate academic levels, why not actually move the students into different classes?  

Getting Everyone On Board

The discussion of this significant modification began with the math teachers.  At a department meeting the possibility of creating separate Part 1 and Algebra 1 classes at mid-year was introduced.  For the teachers the disadvantages were numerous.  Such changes could very easily result in additional preparations for many.  The curriculum coverage and pacing in every Algebra 1 class would have to become identical.  In addition, there could be issues concerning who should teach which level of classes.  Finally, splitting the students would basically create all new classes in both Algebra 1 and Part 1 that would require teachers to reestablish classroom management rules and philosophies.  For the students the positives were simple.  The ones who remained in Algebra 1 would see a rapid acceleration in the presentation of the curriculum.  For the Part 1 participants, they would have an opportunity to learn the material in the first half of Algebra 1 for a second time.  Analysis over several years of student performance had determined that the area of greatest difficulty was the second quarter material.  Consequently in this “do-over”, that portion of the curriculum would receive a greater amount of class time.  

After a lengthy discussion a vote was taken.  It was unanimously in favor.  This result was not surprising.  The math department was a special group of people.  Two of the teachers were former Peace Corps workers and the majority of the others were of a similar mindset.  For a school to succeed with the highest free and reduced lunch rate and the most ELL students in the district would require nothing less.  

Next up was the director of guidance.  A former member of the Peace Corps herself, her team would be confronted with major problems created by this plan.  There would be massive schedule changes, numerous consultations with parents, and many revisions to student transcripts.  For non-math people the delineation between the various levels of Algebra 1 could become quite confusing.   But without hesitation her response was affirmative.  If this is what is best for the students, she told me, then we will find a way to make it work.  Her level of commitment never wavered over the next few years despite the dramatically increased workload for the guidance staff.  Her actions were crucial to the ongoing success of the program.

The administrative team was equally supportive.  The state testing had begun and for many of our students these barrier exams were proving to be very challenging.   Whatever sacrifices the adults needed to make were going to be made.

After the first year I convened the math department once again to discuss the program.  The initial expectations of the plan, both good and bad, were close to what had been anticipated.  Scores on the state exams were improved (the pass rate rose from 32% to 39%), but the perceived negatives for the teachers did occur—more class preps, restarting classes, etc.  We openly discussed the pros and cons.  In order to avoid any sense of pressure, after the meeting I conducted a secret ballot vote on whether to continue.   The vote to retain the plan was unanimous.  With experience the program became more and more efficient.  In the master schedule Algebra 1 classes were bunched into periods to allow student changes to occur without disrupting other classes.  The decision on placement was moved two weeks earlier so as not to interfere with semester grading.  And most importantly, the students’ scores soared.

The bottom line is clear—implementing dramatic change takes time, communication and commitment.  The Algebra Project illustrated the need for all of those ingredients.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:05 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Educational reform has always been popular cocktail conversation.  While most people do not understand Wall Street derivatives and very few have expertise on medical science or the cause of automobile accelerator problems, everyone has been a student and they all have an opinion on what is right and wrong with our schools.  Recently, however, this discussion has shifted from casual to red-hot.  Normally a campaign issue that fades after the votes are counted, educational reform is now being debated on high-profile opinion shows and the front pages of newspapers throughout the country. The development of the “Common Core State Standards Initiative” (CCSSI), the new “Race to the Top” Obama initiative which ties funding to student performance and the drama of firing teachers by the scores have all brought the analysis of school data to the forefront.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

In virtually every new plan under consideration the use of statistics is the centerpiece for evaluating students, teachers, schools and districts.  As a math teacher for forty years, I find myself simultaneously applauding this approach while cautioning its utilization.  Far too often, such numbers have been the fool’s gold of education.  The recent firing of the entire staff at Rhode Island’s Central Falls High School demonstrates the danger inherent in the use of statistics as an evaluative tool.  As Valerie Strauss documented in her recent post, “Teacher firings and Obama comments stir serious backlash” the data used to condemn the school were misleading.  One of the primary complaints against the personnel was the low graduation rate.  The methodology of computing this number included counting as “dropouts” a significant number of individuals who were deported as illegal immigrants.  Also included in this category were students who transferred to other schools in order to enroll in honor programs after such courses were discontinued at Central Falls.  Not included in the analysis was an assessment of the demographics of the school’s student body compared to others in the state.  This staff was working with a significantly higher rate of free and reduced lunch, ELL, and special needs students than the norm in the state.  Mix in seven principals in the past six years and there is little wonder that the school struggled.  While this additional information does not by itself change the belief that Central Falls has serious problems, the greater concern is that, if future plans are to use data in more sweeping evaluations, such measurements must consistently and accurately reflect the performance of a school.

Evaluating Statistics is Not Intuitive 

I recently asked my son who is a senior vice-president of marketing for a large international bank about the use of student performance statistics in education.  His principle warning was to recognize that raw data by itself is generally useless.  He added that the true value of such numbers is when they are placed into context with multiple measures, and, even better, when used in regression analysis to truly understand what the data is saying.  His advice reinforced what I had discovered when I created a statistical review during the 1999-2000 school year.  It was the fourth year of state barrier exams and the basic numbers were not particularly favorable to our school.  The county ranked the twenty-four schools in the system based on the total score created by adding the pass rates in the four subject areas (Math, Science, Social Studies and English).  Not surprisingly my school with the highest rate of free or reduced lunch (54%) was positioned at number seventeen while the school with the lowest rate (1%) was at the top.  Staff morale was low—the teachers believed they were doing far better than that placement would indicate and I often heard derogatory comments about the top-ranked school—“Of course they were number one.  What would you expect with that student body.”

A Colorful Comparison

With the prodding of my principal I took a look “inside” the numbers.  I began by color-coding in red the schools with the twelve lowest free and reduced lunch rates and the highest dozen in blue.  Not surprisingly, the top half of the county score chart was entirely red and the bottom completely blue.  Clearly success on these tests was directly correlated to the financial status of the student body.  But the goal of my research was not to prove the truth of this long held belief; the task was to determine how well each school was performing based on their unique circumstances.  A formula was developed comparing the relationship between the raw scores and free/reduced lunch levels.  A line of regression was created and the equation of that line would produce a predicted total score for a school based on its demographics.  The correlation coefficient (basically its accuracy reliability) of this tool was determined to be 0.9.  Since 1.0 represents perfect correlation (i.e. the sun rises in the east) this value represents a very high degree of accuracy. Using this information it was determined that a school with a 6% free/reduced rate “should” score 354 while one with 26% would be expected to have a 335.  The rest of the analysis was simple.  Every school’s “expected” score was computed, then that number was compared to their actual result.  If the school at 6% had a total of 351 it would be given a –3.  The 26% had a 341 that translated to a +6.

A Beautiful (and More Meaningful) Blend

The twenty-four schools were ranked with these new numbers.  The revised chart was a montage of colors.  The top half now had five blues and seven reds.  My school was ranked number one and the previous leader was second.  I gave a thirty-minute presentation on this process at a faculty meeting.  Despite the density of the math, the audience was unusually attentive because of the relevance of the topic.  More importantly, two critical conclusions were clearly ascertained.  Based on this analysis of multiple, relevant sets of data, our staff was doing extremely effective work with our unique student body and that other school, although possessing a wealthy student body, was also performing at a very high level.  Validation was given to two schools at opposite ends of the demographic spectrum. 

This particular study represented one small statistical interpretation of educational scores.  It was neither sophisticated nor broadly based.  But it did have the capacity when used over a period of time to more accurately demonstrate a school’s actual trajectory in terms of this set of exams.  This process was only presented to the faculty for one more year.  It was, however, a clear demonstration of the power of precise mathematical analysis.  The staff gained significant reassurance and confidence from these results and quickly elevated their goal to having the best scores in the county regardless of socio-economic level.  Likewise, the administrative team acquired a better understanding of the success being attained within the school.

If comprehensive data analysis is to become a critical component in crafting future educational policy extreme care must be taken to ensure that these powerful tools are used correctly.  Procedures should be in place requiring that context, consistency, and research are utilized extensively when creating any measurement.

Next:  A Plan for Standardizing Data

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:41 AM | Permalink

According to an Education Week report, superintendents expressed concerns that Secretary Arne Duncan’s plans to turn around low-performing schools that call for the firing of principals could delay progress and make principal recruitment even harder than it already is.

Why a two year window?

Questions arose about the magic two-year target for making progress. One superintendent wanted to know why he would have to fire principals who were actually making progress.

They are doing phenomenal things!

According to the report, San Francisco schools superintendent Carlos Garcia voiced the frustrations of many in the room, asking Duncan why two years was set as a target, noting that he has some principals who are making great progress at turning around their schools, but have been in place longer than two years. "They are doing phenomenal things," Garcia said, as his colleagues in the packed ballroom cheered him on. "I'm supposed to fire them." Garcia, citing his own experience as a turnaround principal, said it took three years before he saw real change at the school he led, which became a Blue Ribbon school. Making changes in staffing and programming took time, he said. The new regulations, he said, may make it harder to recruit principals for high-needs schools. "If it's going to be two years, how are we going to get people to do that work?" he asked.

Growth Model Preferred

Duncan indicated that the determination of the bottom 5 percent should not be based solely on test scores, but based on growth.

Comment: My concern is that we do not yet have capacity to evaluate schools on cohort growth and we are, in fact, calling schools “failing” on the basis of test scores.

Show me your numbers!

Duncan doesn’t believe it takes five years to turn around a school. He saw schools in Chicago turn around quicker.

Comment: How many years does it take? According to Susannah Loeb's research (see www.caldercenter.org) real progress does not appear until the third year and increases each year thereafter.

The best to the toughest schools

"What we want to do is get the best educators in the country to go to the toughest schools," he said.

Comment: It is already extremely difficult to recruit teachers to work in under-resourced schools. How are you going to do that when you are making these schools targets for termination? The effect is driving people away.

Just do something!

Duncan admitted "We don't have the capacity to do 1,000 schools yearly. We aren't going to do it perfectly, but the answer isn't inaction."

Comment: So we don’t know what to do, but we should fire the people who are supposed to know, the principals.

Why not do what we know works?

Mike Casserly of the Great City Schools suggested that we base reform efforts on what has been proven to work. Others suggested that we know what to do. We just don’t know how to get there.

Comment: Fidelity of implementation has always been the problem? We don't need more ideas. We need to do a bettter job of implementing what we know works. That takes time, training, and support. Under the current plan, principals receive none of the aforementioned.

Seniority is killing reform

Superintendents complained that they were losing good young teachers.

Duncan admitted there are "no easy answers."

Comment: So, let's fire the principals and teachers anyway.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:17 PM | Permalink