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

What is tracking?

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

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

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

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

My Take On Grouping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:07 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

Effective groups are characterized by:

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:55 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post Mel Riddile discussed the adverse effect of educators failing to fully utilize available technology.  He pointed to the fact that too often various tools are bought for schools and then are not used effectively. 

“We cannot fairly evaluate something that we have not implemented. We can't say that a diet didn't work if we never tried it…We are still dabbling around the edges of technology integration.

“In fact, we educators are unintentionally doing more harm to the argument for more technology than we are doing any good.”

In a follow-up post I endorsed those sentiments by contrasting his concerns with the manner in which the calculator has been integrated into the high school math classroom. 

“By introducing 21stcentury technology into math, the course became alive and intriguing for 21st century students.  Regardless of the price tag it was an educational bargain. 

And more importantly, it had, in the words of Mel Riddile, become a "necessity."   The incorporation of the graphing calculator in math should serve as a role model for the rest of school-based technology.”

When good technology goes bad

While it is clear that tools like the graphing calculator can enhance the educational experience and need to be utilized fully, there is no guarantee that all technology is of equal benefit in the classroom.  One of my former colleagues was quick to inform me that a blanket endorsement of the utility of every device is a mistake.

“No one loves technology more than I do; I use it whenever I can.  But there is one thing that too many people don’t understand about employing it in the classroom—if it’s not ‘plug and play’ it is often not worth the effort.  If something is unreliable, complicated or ill-conceived it will most likely be abandoned or discarded.

“For example, I loved “Logger Pro."  It allowed the kids to collect and analyze data quickly.  It made labs more informative, allowed students to use data rather than to just collect it.   It was much like the graphing calculator. It basically involved an “on” and “off” switch to operate.  Instead of spending time fighting with balky equipment, the time was spent with the students analyzing the information they had obtained.

“That is not always the case.  Many of the innovations that are offered to teachers either don’t deliver the advertised results or don’t work at all.  To be effective in a classroom it has to be ‘plug and play’ and that means play effectively.”

Going off the “deep” end

She is not alone in her experiences.  For all of the good results that the calculator brought to the math classroom there were tech horror stories as well.  In the mid-nineties my school district made a huge financial investment in a particular software program, which was advertised as a self-guided learning tool for Algebra 1.  For weeks the teachers tried in vain to make the system work.  Untold hours of class time were lost.  Finally, in frustration I called the company’s educational liaison to explain the nuances of the program at a math department meeting.  Twenty minutes into the planned presentation she was still struggling to get the software functioning.  As the room became restless she asked for ten more minutes. It was to no avail; as teachers began to drift out of the computer lab she promised to come back at a later date when she was better prepared.   We never saw her again.  The software was “deep-sixed” by the department.

Lessons learned

Wasting thirty or forty minutes of a teacher’s afternoon is unfortunate but not disastrous.  However, fumbling with recalcitrant software in front of 30 adolescents for even half that amount of time is an educational nightmare.  Likewise trying to set up a complicated piece of technology in the seven minutes of passing time between classes is a formula for a classroom meltdown.   Patience is not a typical characteristic of high school students.   Any new method of instruction is usually allotted only one opportunity to fail.

Making classroom technology work

Mel Riddile is correct in setting a goal of fully implementing technology in the classroom. Such an approach is essential for preparing students to be successful in the world of 2011.  Classroom instruction must reflect the tools available both inside and outside the school.  There are, however, several guidelines that need to be followed:

1. Training requirements must be centered on the teachers not the students.  Teachers can afford to invest time in learning how to effectively use new technologies.  What they cannot afford is spending large amounts of time in class to instruct and reinstruct 30 individuals on how to employ the equipment.  Effective technologies should require little more than a flip of a switch by students.
2. Equipment must be dependable.  A lesson plan based on a piece of software or a data-gathering device that fails, results is lost class time – a precious commodity in education.  Therefore a high level of reliability is a key requirement for any piece of classroom equipment.
3. Technology must enhance instruction.  Too many pieces of expensive equipment can be found gathering dust in storage rooms across the nation.  Some new innovations represent marvelous technological breakthroughs but often do little to actually improve instruction.  Before purchasing any new teaching tools, districts should seek input from teachers who have extensively used the devices under consideration.  Something that is essential for a Social Studies class may have little or no value in a Physics lab.
4. Customer service must be effective and readily available.  When the inevitable problems with technology arise, teachers must be able to obtain quick and reliable support.  The in-school specialists are rarely equipped to help with such specific questions.  Quality help should never be more than one phone call or email away.
5. The equipment must be easy to set up and take down.  Teachers may need to utilize a specific technology for one class but not for the one that precedes or follows it.  It must also be portable.  Teachers move from one classroom to another and/or share equipment with multiple teachers, the technology has to be equally mobile.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:58 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

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

An example of a "necessity"

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

Weighing priorities

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

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

Questions, questions, questions

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

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

Use it or lose it

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:42 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

            “What is the solution for every math concern?”

            “That is correct”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            “Right again, please continue…”

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

A tale of two school districts

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

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

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

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

A better way to go

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

And then there is the science

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

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

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

The price of failure

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

Final Jeopardy

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:04 AM | Permalink

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

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

Better But Not There Yet

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

More Taking Online Courses

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

Online Courses Becoming Mainstream

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

Teachers: No thanks to online learning

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

Who is the "cork in the bottle?"

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

Can't Keep Up

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

Up-to-date Classroom

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

Unsatisfied Students

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:28 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

It is not a new problem

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

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

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

Replacing one bad idea with another

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

The next big thing

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:58 PM | Permalink

Background: The Washington Examiner reports that "Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale is planning to tell principals to ease teachers' workloads outside the classroom, following months of complaints from school employees who say they're overworked and overwhelmed."

I was attending a principals’ meeting held in a neighboring high school. When the meeting ended, I walked through the halls to the rear of the school where my car was parked. At the end of the hall sat a teacher. I exchanged greetings and asked her what she was doing. She explained that it was lunchtime and that she was assigned to sit there every day to prevent students from leaving the cafeteria area and walking through the halls and disturbing classes. I said jokingly, “You should come to our school. Our teachers don’t have hall duty. They used to, but we learned how to train fleas.” “Train fleas,” she asked?

Flea Trainers

I explained to her that if you put fleas in a jar (an old Zig Ziglar story) and put the lid on, and later removed the lid, the fleas wouldn’t jump out, because they were trained that, if they tried to jump out, they would bump their heads on the lid. She laughed. I went on to explain that for years our teachers were assigned to stand or sit in the hallways during lunch to prevent students from walking the halls, but one of the things that I am proudest of was how we dramatically cut extra duties for our teachers. I wanted our teachers to focus on teaching not hall duty.
With a confused look on her face, the teacher asked me how we kept the kids out of the halls. “Easy,” I said. As certified flea trainers, we replaced the teacher with a sign that read “No Students Beyond This Point.” We replaced the teachers with a sign, and guess what? After a “getting-used-to-it” period where we had to patrol the hallways, we received excellent cooperation from the students and there were no more students in hallways than when the teachers sat on guard duty.

Mixed Messages

Shortly after arriving at the school I decided that, if we wanted our teachers to focus on teaching, we had to show them that their time should be spent focusing on teaching. It was a mixed message to say, on one hand that teaching was the most important work in our school, and turn right around and assign teachers to numerous non-teaching duties. So, we removed teacher duties, including lunch, and what our district referred to as “extra-duty assignments,” which were actually part of the teachers’ contracts. I decided to unilaterally eliminate those assignments to give teachers more planning time.

The Bottom Line

Raising the achievement of each and every student is not easy and certainly not convenient. Even when we focus one hundred percent of our time on teaching and learning, we still have a long way to go. Leading schools today is not like it used to be. It's not about the ABCs (Administration By Convenience). It is convenient to assign teachers to extra duties, but we must recognize that doing so dissipates the energies of our teachers and detracts from our true mission--teaching and learning.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:48 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

A disturbing imbalance

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

The big lie

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

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

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

It is time to demand more

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:25 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

Active Engagement

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

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

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

The Mindset of the Teacher

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

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

Behavior Doesn't Lie

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

Conclusion

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

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

My Take

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

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

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

A challenge to school leaders

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:45 PM | Permalink

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

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

It is the implementation not the procedure

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

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

Recruit effectively at the district level

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

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

They are not widgets

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

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

Their loss was our gain

I firmly believe that hiring teachers was my most important responsibility.  Each of those decisions had potentially long-term positive or negative impacts that could span years.  Since more than two dozen high schools in my district were choosing from a small pool of applicants, I approached the process as an intense form of competition. In a manner similar to college athletic recruiting or drafting in professional sports, the procedure consisted of carefully studying applications to locate the best candidates, an extensive interviewing process to narrow the focus and then an aggressive recruiting campaign to convince them to become a part of our math team.  I was also aware of the fact that not all of those other schools were as concerned with the endeavor.  Here are two such instances that resulted from such indifference.

Great teachers can apply any time

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

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

Professionals deserve professional treatment

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

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

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

Next:  Creating an effective interview

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:00 AM | Permalink

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

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

2. Classroom Management Improves Math Performance

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

3. Questioning Improves Reading

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

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

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

Implications for School Leaders

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:52 AM | Permalink

Teachers repeatedly complain to me that their students cannot do research at school because so many sites are blocked. In a recent interview, which is a must-read for all school staff and parents, Karen Cator of the U.S. Department of Education takes on what she calls "brute force technologies." According to Cator, many schools are over-complying with federal guidelines.

What you must know about content filtering

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

1.     Accessing YouTube is not violating CIPA rules.

2.     Websites don’t have to be blocked for teachers.

3.     Broad filters are not helpful.

4.     Schools will not lose E-rate funding by unblocking appropriate sites.

5.     Kids need to be taught how to be responsible digital citizens.

6.     Teachers should be trusted.

My Take

Content filtering is an important part of any school wide technology effort. I should know. In my former high school, every one of our 3,200 students had a laptop. We blocked inappropriate sites. On occasion, our staff blocked appropriate sites, but we had a simple remedy. If a teacher came across a site that she wanted unblocked, she simply emailed me the name of the site and the URL. I forwarded a request to our IT people and, within minutes the problem was solved. The key here is that the principal get involved and take some leadership. IT people are simply doing what they think is best. If they never hear from us, they have no idea that a problem exists. While it is true that some IT people practice the ABCs (Administration By Convenience), those individuals are rare. I have found most IT people to be particularly helpful, especially when the principal is willing to take the time to show interest and to get directly involved.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:53 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In an essay published in the Outlook section of the Washington Post, John Sener has decided that by successfully making 18 of 20 free throws in a gymnasium he has, using the same criteria used by analysts of standardized testing, successfully proven that he is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.  Using similar logic he dismisses the poor performance of American students on the PISA test as irrelevant.   

When in doubt, ridicule

 When my former school posted outstanding scores in the state’s standardized tests I was surprised by the number of questions other educational leaders raised about our “ethics”.  Mel Riddile would explain to me that when you have poor outcomes you have two options—work harder and smarter or find a way to bring the competition down.  Unfortunately, the latter approach appears to be the one favored by Mr. Sener.

His argument is that standardized tests in general and the PISA international test in specific are inaccurate indicators of the quality of a country’s educational system.  He begins with sarcasm and then drifts into the surreal.

“Once you truly understand the awesome power of test scores, you will embrace them, as I have done — especially after realizing how standardized testing proves that I am a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

“Don’t laugh; I have the test results. I read something in a blog somewhere about how MJ recently made 16 out of 20 free throws in a friendly shooting contest. Pretty good, but I thought I could do better. So I went to my local gym and practiced and practiced until I achieved my aim: 18 out of 20 free throws! I’ll send you the video, if you like. (Or you could do what most people do with PISA scores and simply take my word for it.)”

Making the basket; missing the point

Based on his free-throw shooting (real or otherwise) Mr. Sener reaches several conclusions about the PISA test scores in the United States.

“You may argue that it’s not a fair comparison, but that’s what so great about this — simply use the same rules we apply to judging PISA scores, and it’s perfectly fair.  So what if it’s not a head-to-head competition? PISA’s not a head-to-head competition. The students take the tests at different times in different places under different conditions. Heck, they take the reading test in different languages.”   

His second explanation of the poor performance of U.S. students is their lack of interest.

“…what makes you think that American students take PISA seriously? When I tested my teenage son’s knowledge of the PISA exam, he just looked at me quizzically, since he’d never heard of it…Do you really believe that every student who takes the PISA has the same amount of practice?"  

To assess for yourself whether increased practice would affect the outcome of US students’ scores on the PISA tests, go to http://pisa-sq.acer.edu.au/ .

Not all air balls

Mixed into the misguided basketball analogies Mr. Sener does make some excellent points which should be emphasized.

“Standardized tests don’t measure most skills, yet opinion leaders and policymakers constantly tell us how America’s education is going down the toilet based on those scores...There is no place in standardized tests for creativity...You would be wise to ask these questions, even though standardized tests don’t care about curiosity, either.”

Ignored problems do not go away

There is no question that standardized testing does not answer all of the questions of how to measure learning and good teaching.  I have long argued that the Standards of Learning (SOL) exams given in my state (VA) did not indicate mastery of a subject and the method of administering the tests was poor.  But I also knew that though imperfect this new accountability was a step in the right direction.  Prior to such tests there were virtually no quantitative measures of the relative performances of students from classroom to classroom, school to school or district to district.  These results clearly indicated discernible patterns that, if used correctly, could be of great value. 

While this standardization did not equate to the level of precision that would be optimal, it did offer critical insights into the quality of teaching.  In every school the staff forms subjective conclusions as to which teachers are effective and those that are not.  During the ten years I observed SOL testing (VA) the results of these exams closely matched these informal evaluations.  Based on substantial data, the students of certain teachers routinely outperformed others.  While such statistics can and were misused, they did provide a limited amount of quantitative proof of student comprehension, weaknesses and the quality of the work of their instructors.

These outcomes were not enough.  The testing methods need to be improved to better reflect the actual knowledge acquisition.  They must demonstrate a legitimate understanding of a wide range of material.  This process is still in its infancy and far from a finished product.  The potential for improvement is present if the willingness to keep an open mind is maintained.

But simply ignoring any measurement that indicates a serious problem in American education is reckless.  A country where more than three of every ten students drop out of high school and only 30% attain a college degree is hardly in a position to dismiss a poor global performance with sarcasm and ridicule. 

Note: At the high school level, Virginia administers eleven end-of-course (EOC) exams, which are used both as barriers to graduation and to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP). Only a few states use EOC exams for accountability purposes and as barriers to graduation.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:11 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Take

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Take

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:39 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

Don’t believe every statistic

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

The more math the better

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing the educational point

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:39 PM | Permalink

In my last post, I asked Should Your Child Teach? My intent was to point out that, just at the time when we need quality teachers the most; teaching is being made a less attractive profession. This needs to change! A veteran teacher wrote me saying the following:

"Let me start with "amen". This is personal for me.  My daughter-in-law in Texas (who has a degree in English and a master's in Library Science) has decided to pursue a career in Special Education.  She is completing the necessary coursework and testing and now is faced with not getting a job due to budget cuts.  She is very discouraged, as would anyone else in her position. My son in California wanted to be a teacher/coach with his math degree and athletic background.  He is currently earning several times more than a teacher in the private sector.  It was way too easy of a decision for him."

While the search for teaching jobs may discourage some, it turns out that finding a teaching job may be much easier in some regions than in others. This assumes that budget shortfalls will come to an end and local funds will be available to hire new teachers.

Education Daily reports that a recent study from National Center for Education Statistics indicates that public and private elementary and secondary school enrollment increased by 10 percent between 1994 and 2007 and will continue to increase by 6 percent through 2019.

The best place to find a teaching job will be in the South and West. A 12 percent increase in high school graduates is expected in the South and a 9 percent increase is expected in the West. Decreases of 14 percent in the Northeast and 7 percent in the Midwest are expected.

Among the findings in Projections of Education Statistics to 2019:

• Seven states are expected to see enrollment increase by more than 15 percent: North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Utah.

• All of the New England states, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Michigan are expected to see enrollment decrease by more than 5 percent.

• The number of new teacher hires in public schools is projected to increase 40 percent by 2019.

Essential Questions for School Leaders

What does it mean for schools if student enrollments are increasing at the same time that fewer are enrolling in teacher preparation programs? My guess is that, just as the Common Core assessments are implemented, there will be a severe shortage of teachers. Who will suffer the most? As usual, rural schools and schools in less attractive, high-poverty areas will again find themselves at the end of the line when hiring new teachers.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:33 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Some positive responses

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

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

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

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

Making it relevant

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

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

Not everyone is convinced

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:52 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:24 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts for learning leaders

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

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

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

Writing Resources

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:42 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She retorted, "I don't tweet!"

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

Next: Revisiting Reverse Instruction

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:14 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Not as simple as it looks

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

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

A long inflationary cycle

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

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

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

Parents join the fray

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

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

Some parents are more equal than others

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

An issue of fairness

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

A time and a place

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:37 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

A benign dictatorship

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

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

What has gone wrong?

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

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

Good education needs cross pollination

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:02 AM | Permalink

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

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

Background

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

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

Demographics

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

Why pay teachers $125,000 a year?

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

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

How are TEP teachers different?

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

Student Engagement

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

Closing the Achievement Gap

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

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

Where does the money come from?

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

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

Teacher Evaluation

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

Expectations of Teachers

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

Students Say

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

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

Teachers on Teaching

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

Tenure: If you have a pulse

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

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

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

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

Can TEP be scaled up?

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

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

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

Criteria for Evaluating Teachers

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

Does More Mean Better?

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

Disappointing Results

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

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

It takes time!

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

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

My Thoughts

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:27 PM | Permalink

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

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

Student Achievement or Adult Convenience

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

A Testimonial

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

Research: Science says, "Let them sleep."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:13 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:51 PM | Permalink

"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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Some great ideas

One aspect of Mr. Gates analysis is the classroom:

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

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

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

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

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

A solution that must be implemented carefully

Mr. Gates concludes with some thoughts about class size.

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

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

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

Great teachers not super heroes

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:59 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

According to Dr. Riddile, “A recent study summarized in Science magazine and reported in a New York Times article titled To Really Learn, Quit Studying and Take a Test may be a key to unlocking some keys to the teaching and learning process.”  This discussion does not concern the end-of-course barrier exams that are the focal point of most educational conversations.  The research revolves around the use of testing within a teacher’s daily lesson planning.  The study found “practicing retrieval produces greater gains in meaningful learning than elaborate studying.”  As Dr. Riddile notes, “In other words, the simple act of taking a test may improve learning better than any other studying technique including note taking and concept mapping.”

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

The view from the classroom

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

The centerpiece of the plan

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

A systematic approach

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

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

It sounds so boring

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

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

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

Students love structure

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

The sincerest form of flattery

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:28 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

In the beginning

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

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

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

 “I can learn anything if I try.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 “Winning is everything.  Anything else is losing.”

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

The formula is always the same

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:30 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

Practicing Retrieval

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

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

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

Counterintuitive?

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

The real proof of learning

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

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

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

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

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

This is a Big Deal

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

It Throws Down the Gauntlet

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

More Testing?

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

Look 4s for School Leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What this study really says to school leaders

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

Next: Checks for Understanding

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:50 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

What school leaders should consider

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:59 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

The highest form of flattery

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

A personal complaint

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:42 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional thoughts on iPads and technology intergration:

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

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

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

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

Novelty, Nicety, or Necessity?

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:37 PM | Permalink

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

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

The best teach the neediest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, but no thanks!

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:05 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Teaching the wrong things

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

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

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

A very good teaching tool

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

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

Sending the wrong message

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

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

Should educators be concerned about youth gambling?

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:37 PM | Permalink

Be careful what you ask for! Just about anyone could see this one coming. Cut school budgets and layoff teachers. Demand that teachers close the achievement gap. Tie evaluations to test scores. Threaten to fire teachers. Complain about teacher pay. Call schools failing. Then wonder why people don't want to be teachers.

School leaders and teachers face a new "perfect storm." The pressure to improve continues to rise and the resources continue to diminish.

According to a new report, "the number of Californians seeking to become teachers has plummeted by 45 percent over a seven year period – even as student enrollments are projected to rise by 230,000 over the next decade and as many as 100,000 teachers are expected to retire." Furthermore, "Teaching is clearly becoming a less and less desirable profession for Californians." While student populations continue to grow, the critics are going to get exactly what they asked for--more students and no new teachers.

I have said it all along. Our problem is not how to fire teachers, but rather how to recruit, train, and develop great teachers. This is confirmed by a report from the Center for Future of Teaching and Learning which warns about the brewing crisis:

"The disinvestment in building a top quality teacher workforce is at odds with rising demands for students' academic success. The fiscal crisis has so severely damaged the pipeline for recruiting and training new teachers that teaching quality may be put at risk for many years to come."

"Because of budget cuts, teachers are expected to do more with less, typically teaching in larger classes, with fewer counseling and other staff to help out with hard-to-teach children."

One expert put it bluntly, "Teachers are coping with lower compensation, fewer resources and increasing expectations of student achievement. "It is a reasonable expectation that a college sophomore or junior might think 'I might not even get a job, so perhaps I should look for another career."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:16 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:18 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

 A failure to communicate

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

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

A critical requirement

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

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

A formula for success…and support

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:43 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Bob Farrace at 01:19 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Doesn't Matter?

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

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

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

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

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

Context Matters

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

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

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

Subjects Matter

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memos don't change culture

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

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

Bring on the talking heads

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

Let me count the ways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Simple but compelling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

If only they had listened

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

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

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

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

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

Some things cannot be undone

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conversation Starter

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:12 PM | Permalink

By Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The articles tell two totally different stories but ultimately coalesce around one basic conclusion.  The first was in the Washington Post by Jay Mathews entitled “Curiosity is banned at Westfield High”.  Mr. Mathews chronicled the “Expectations of Integrity” adopted by three AP World History teachers at Westfield HS in Fairfax County, Virginia.  This manifesto on research included:

"You are only allowed to use your OWN knowledge, your OWN class notes, class handouts, your OWN class homework, or The Earth and Its Peoples textbook to complete assignments and assessments UNLESS specifically informed otherwise by your instructor.''

Other than some overly dramatic capitalization the rules seemed reasonable enough.  However Mr. Mathews also noted:

“Students could not use anything they found on the Internet. They were not permitted even to discuss their assignments with friends, classmates, neighbors, parents, relatives or siblings.

Mr. Mathews then asked:

“What about complete strangers? The teachers had thought of that. ‘You may not discuss/mention/chat/hand signal/smoke signal/Facebook/IM/text/email to a complete stranger ANY answers/ideas/questions/thoughts/opinions/hints/instructions.’ The words were playful, but the teachers were serious. Any violations, they said, would mean a zero on the assignment and an honor code referral.”

I had two immediate reactions to these revelations.  First, I was very interested in learning what compelling experiences had led these teachers to such drastic rules.  Unfortunately they opted not to explain them.  Secondly, and more importantly, this extreme approach to educational research revealed a profound problem with utilizing information available in today’s world.

Ironically, the presumed argument made by these teachers– that use of the Internet or collaboration is inferior to class notes and textbooks - was substantiated a few days later in the discovery of some troubling facts presented in a book being used by fourth-graders in Virginia.  This state-approved text contained a portion stating that thousands of slaves fought for the Confederacy.  According to the Washington Post, this assertion which has been discounted by the vast majority of scholars on the subject was the result of some shoddy research.

“The author, Joy Masoff, who is not a trained historian but has written several books, said she found the information about black Confederate soldiers primarily through Internet research, which turned up work by members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.”

Another issue concerning a misidentified breed of bear brought further questions about the accuracy of Ms. Masoff investigative skills.  

The critical component that ties these stories together is the revelation of a significant educational problem that needs to be addressed—preparing our students to perform accurate and meaningful research in the twenty-first century.

A serious problem requires a serious response

If a published author of school materials has difficulty navigating the information highway, how can we expect better from our students?  Banning all use of the Internet, arguably the most powerful research tool ever created, is certainly not the answer.  Nor will one-hour presentations by school librarians create Internet savvy students in 2010.  What is needed is a serious commitment of time and energy to ensure that we create the skills necessary to harness the immense power of the technology that is now available.

When I was in middle school every student was required to take a twelve-week course in typing.  I hated every minute of the class.  By week three I had grown to despise typing “the quick gray fox jumped over the lazy brown dog”.  But despite all of my fourteen-year-old anger the ultimate result of that course was that I had acquired a skill that would prove to be a critical asset throughout my life.

Today there is a compelling need to have a similar approach to research.  All students in the early portion of their secondary education should be enrolled in a class designed to teach them to both effectively utilize the information available and to discriminate between what is valid and what is not. 

What would such a class look like?

Though I am not a research expert, I could envision a course that was taught within the following parameters.  It would be conducted in a computer lab giving all students access to the Internet.  The first few weeks would focus on the fundamentals—learning to use the various tools available for research.  After those skills are mastered, students would undertake projects in a variety of disciplines.  For two weeks they could accumulate materials on a topic based in social studies.  The next project would be dedicated to scientific research.  One of the primary responsibilities of the teacher would be to demonstrate the unique approaches that are required for the two different subject areas.  These projects would be reviewed, graded and discussed for their strengths and weaknesses.  There would then be additional assignments exploring everything from literature to foreign language to math to artistic interpretation.  The possible subjects are unlimited and would require a constantly changing set of research skills.  Participants should be given the opportunity to work alone, in groups and with experts who have been contacted in the course of their investigations. 

A boatload of good outcomes

Such a serious commitment to the study of research—a graded class with a fulltime teacher—will reinforce for the students the importance of being able to judge the quality and accuracy of information.   In addition for an eighth or ninth grader the in-depth study of all of those different subjects will be a great introduction to the high school curriculum.  Meanwhile high school teachers could be given intense in-service sessions designed to strengthen their own research abilities.  Armed with this knowledge, when these educators make assignments that necessitate research in their high school courses, they would be able to reinforce the skills their students have previously acquired. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

What I did not mean

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

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

Try, try again—Topic 1

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

Topic 2

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:18 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

A difference of opinion 

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

A Chilling Moment

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

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

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

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

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

An infection that spreads throughout a building

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

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

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

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

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

A needed dialogue

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

What attributes made him the most effective district supervisor?

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:16 PM | Permalink

Ask any educational reformer for a list of the most critical problems in our schools today and the topic of student attendance will inevitably be found near the top.  The logic is simple—if you are not there, you are not going to learn.  But based on a recent Education Week article by Hedy Chang the solutions to this long-term problem may be far more complicated than many would expect.  Ms. Chang presents five significant myths about student attendance that should give everyone in education pause.   Here are the misconceptions that she believes are inhibiting some real solutions to the problem.

Students don’t start missing a lot of school until middle or high school.

National research has determined that 10% of all kindergarten and first-graders miss at least a month of school each year.  In some places, such as New York City, the number of students is twice as high.  Obviously the vast majority of these absences are excused—children at this age are unlikely to be staying home without some parental supervision.  According to Ms. Chang the ramifications are potentially immense:  “…the bad attendance habits that lead to skipping school can become entrenched in the early years.”

Absences in the early grades don’t really affect academics.

Not surprisingly studies show that chronically absent kindergarten students do not perform as well in the first grade as those who were consistently present.  It is not unusual to have these deficiencies continue throughout elementary school.  Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments was found in Chicago where the attendance of ninth-graders proved to be a better predictor of drop outs than eighth-grade test scores.

Most schools already know how many students are chronically absent.

Ms. Chang laments that most school data concerning absences only revolve around the total school attendance patterns and “unexcused” absences.  Consequently many individuals who are missing large portions of class time remain under the educational radar.  As she points out “an elementary school of 400 students can have 95 percent of its students showing up every day and yet still have 60 children missing 18 days—or 10 percent of the school year.”

There’s not much that schools can do to improve attendance; it’s up to the parents.

While certainly the traditional path of parental involvement and truant officers needs to be taken, there are often unique concerns that an individual school can incorporate into their programs.  Ms. Chang relates that many causes of chronic absenteeism can be mitigated.  She speaks of Muslim students missing classes during Ramadan for fear of sitting in the cafeteria during these days of fasting.  Other schools had problems resulting from parents who were shift workers and were not awake when their children should have been leaving for school.  Another group that missed too many days was those in homeless shelters.  In each of these cases the affected schools found solutions. One brought in a Muslim counselor and a separate room for these students during the lunch period.  For parents who slept during the day, a school opened the building early to allow parents to drop off their children after work and before going to bed.  

The Federal government has no role in reducing chronic absenteeism.

Test scores may be important but one of the major reasons for poor test scores is bad attendance.  Ms. Chang believes that the federal government should be requiring statistics on chronic absenteeism as well as truancy and test scores.  School improvement can be measured by improved attendance.

The Bottom Line

Successful teaching cannot begin until students are regularly attending class.  Every day that is missed is a lost opportunity regardless of whether the absence is excused or not.  Consequently strategies need to be created to maximize student presence. At my former school the administrative team recognized the importance of this problem and employed a number of techniques to reduce “excused” absences.  When many Muslim students were leaving early on Fridays for prayer, the principal met with officials from the mosque and arranged for a parent volunteer to come to the building during lunch to hold the sessions in the school.  For students who were chronically absent, an automated callout system was used to make 6:00 a.m. wake-up calls to these specific homes.  But as Ms. Chang has written, too many times such innovations are being implemented too late in the process.  These kinds of interventions need to occur at the very beginning of a student’s education.

For every elementary school the overriding need is to acknowledge that all absences -excused or unexcused - are detrimental. They have both short- and long-term negative consequences.  A culture establishing excellent attendance must be created in the earliest grades.  To that end, careful and consistent attention must be given to the analysis of the attendance record of each individual student not just school-wide data.  Every reason given for missing school should be examined and methods devised to prevent them from becoming chronic. If such an approach is started in the primary years, the continuation of such policies at the high school level will become far more effective.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:05 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:35 AM | Permalink

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

This somewhat shocking question was asked in a recent story in The Christian Science Monitor.  Their article tells of a growing number of school districts located in cities including Detroit, Denver, Minneapolis and Boston where schools are being created without principals.  In this new format teachers are making the decisions on everything from curriculum coverage to cafeteria schedules.  While each city has a different program it appears they are being formed in response to a common problem—teachers believe that they are being held more and more accountable for student achievement while having little or no control over how their schools address the issues that impact classroom success.  According to the article teacher response to this scrutiny is basically, “Fine. Hold us accountable. But let us do it our way."  The writer, Stacy Teicher Khadaroo continues:

“While each teacher-led school is unique, the shared decision-making is what defines them. The teachers' participation tends to create a culture quite different from that in a traditional principal-led school: Teachers can't hide behind the classroom door or complain about policies, because they have to come up with solutions.”

While I applaud any approach in which teacher input is both solicited and implemented I am concerned about the wisdom of removing administrative teams designed to make decisions that are neither appropriate nor productive for teachers to make.  Time is a scarce commodity for teachers.  And using it to address such issues as school-wide student discipline, truancy, transportation, lunches, building cleanliness or budgets appears antithetical to the stated goals of these innovative, teacher-led institutions.  What I continue to fervently support, however, are schools where the teaching staff is deeply involved in the decisions that most affect them and their students.

Control or Cooperation

Mel Riddile has written on numerous occasions that for a school to succeed, principals need to be willing to trade some of their control for the cooperation of their staff. Based on my experiences as a department chair for twenty-six years and as a teacher for forty, I agree wholeheartedly.  I worked for a decade in a situation where it was clear that the opinions of teachers were considered and utilized; the department chairs had wide-ranging influence on the curriculum, hiring and the master schedule; and major policy issues were discussed at every level before implementation.  I have also worked in an environment where critical decisions were made behind closed doors and announced without discussion.  Department chairs were specifically told that their major responsibility was simply to carry out the policies of the administrative team.  I feel that the assertion by Ms. Khadaroo—if you want a school where the teachers are willing to be held accountable they must be an integral component in the overall process—is accurate. 

A Successful School with a Principal

Rather than getting rid of the principal, why not attempt to blend both worlds with certain specific arrangements which would ensure teachers accepting accountability and a hierarchy of leadership that would make the school function appropriately?  Here would be my picks for five areas of teacher influence:

Create a strong mid-management presence.  Give department chairs significant authority in the areas of hiring, scheduling, assigning rooms and generating academic policies.  The input of this group should be solicited and utilized on a regular basis.

Choose department chairs in a professional manner.  Schools should have clear and consistent criteria for selecting individuals to be department chairs.  In too many cases these selections are made based purely on seniority, favoritism or, worst case scenario, by whoever is willing to volunteer.  If the job is to be taken seriously, the appointment process must be equally serious.

Create teacher leaders throughout the building.  On every hall in any school there are teachers who have great ideas which could significantly improve academic success.  These views could have a profound effect both in the classrooms and throughout the curriculum.  Administrative leaders should encourage department chairs to solicit input from their members on all academic topics and should also approach teachers directly to request their thoughts and place them in leadership positions on influential committees.

Put classroom teachers into the evaluation process.  During my forty years of teaching math I was never evaluated by an administrator who had taught the subject.  Input from a fellow math teacher would have been welcomed and would have provided a unique viewpoint as would the thoughts of someone from a different department.  Evaluations need to be a collaborative process that includes individuals from the classroom.  Placing teachers into this process would provide an opportunity to make a significant impact on the improvement of both the teachers being observed and the ones making the observations.

Give teachers a voice in administrator evaluations.  In this new “flat-school” approach to education, teachers should have both informal and formal input in the assessment of the administrative staff.  Assistant principals should meet on a regular basis with teachers to have open and honest conversations about the positive and negative impact of their work.  In such a forum comments like “I like the way you handle student discipline for classroom misbehavior but your punishments for being late to classes appear to be inconsistent”, “If you would drop into our classes on an informal but somewhat regular basis I think it would send an excellent message to the students” or “I feel like you are not supportive enough of the teachers when working with your students” could result in constructive outcomes and interesting conversations.  On a more formal basis, teacher participation should be solicited and incorporated into the performance evaluation of all members of the administrative team.  Both of these avenues for frank and sincere dialogue between these two parts of the academic team could provide a significant improvement in morale and a greater sense of teamwork. 

Save the principals!

Principals and administrators should, in an ideal world, facilitate the job of the teachers.  If educating all children at the highest academic levels is our goal, then teachers need all of the help they can get.  They do not need more work or an enhanced job description.  If administrators are allowed to do their job of creating a positive learning environment then teachers can spend more of their time educating, inspiring, and enlightening their students

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:48 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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

The Gold Standard No More

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

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

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

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

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

Tip of the Iceberg

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:24 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

Standardized Tests Scores and Teachers

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

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

Bad, Worse and Worst Outcomes

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

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

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

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

Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:57 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

Inertia can be unproductive

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

Finding Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:27 PM | Permalink

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

A plan that will help but…

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

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

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

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

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

Is this really the best solution?

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

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

A Better Approach

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:54 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s About Time!

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

Inertia can be unproductive

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

Finding Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:19 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

Principal’s Perspective

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

The New Equation

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:01 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Part 2 of “It’s Payback Time.”

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:37 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

The Major Findings

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

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

What Can a School Do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:13 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:12 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

Collateral Damage

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

On track to nowhere

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

The teacher’s perspective

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:43 AM | Permalink

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

I have some thoughts on the subject for school leaders:

One Size Fits All

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

Hurry Up and Learn

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

The Best or the Best Prepared

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

Screen Them Out or Raise Them Up

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:59 PM | Permalink

Teachers have been telling me for years that many of their students identified with learning disabilities were actually poor readers. In addition, school leaders have consistently urged our staffs to view special education as a last resort.

It appears that the emphasis on literacy including diagnostic assessment, early intervention, and explicit instruction coupled with a response to intervention (RtI) approach to raising the performance each and every student is having a positive effect. The number of students identified with learning disabilities has dropped 11 percent in five years.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:27 PM | Permalink

At a time when the focus is on firing principals and teachers, here is an easy way to raise student performance by as much as 10%. Your start time dramatically impacts academic achievement, behavior, motivation, and student engagement. This video gives us all something to think about.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:26 AM | 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)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The quest for improving student performance in mathematics often appears to be something akin to a circular tug-of-war.  If A does not work then try B.  When B flames out it is on to C.  And so it goes until the newest idea is something called A.  There have been so many different formats for Algebra 1 over the past few decades it is beginning to rival the Star Trek franchise for sequels.  The latest batch of bad news concerning math students in the United States compared to their peers around the world has brought on another set of “new” approaches. One of the most popular and potentially counter-productive is the concept of “Algebra 1 for all 8^th graders”.  The premise is simple—if our students are struggling with math and this course is so critical why not have everyone learn it earlier in their scholastic careers.   Here’s my shout to middle school math teachers, “Ready or not, here they come!”  I have to admit the logic escapes me.

But the importance of success in Algebra 1 cannot be underestimated.  Recent studies by Montgomery County Public Schools (MD) have shown a strong correlation between the work done by students in Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 and their ability to obtain a college degree.  Consequently, it is critical when dramatic adjustments are made to the presentation of Algebra 1 that these adaptations result in improved student performance.

Looking at the Data

One of the strengths of standardized testing is, for lack of a better word, the fact that it is standardized.  While classroom grades can be wildly subjective, the results on the same multiple-choice exam given at the same point in the school year graded by the same individuals are not subject to such fluctuations.  In May, 2006 the students taking Honors Algebra 1 in the middle school that feeds into my high school had an average score of 472 on the Virginia Standards of Learning Exam. (The range of scores were from 200-600 with 400 considered passing.) Meanwhile, at the high school, the students taking regular Algebra 1 in grade 9 or later averaged 469 on the exact same test.  At first glance these strikingly similar scores would not seem to be a reason for concern.  One must, however, consider the relative nature of the two groups being tested.  At that time the individuals enrolled in the middle school honors classes were designated as students who were among the top 50% of the class in terms of math skills.  The lower half of the eighth-grade student body, math-wise, was placed into a pre-algebra course and then took Algebra 1 in the ninth grade or later.  When examined under these circumstances the fact that the results for both groups were virtually the same is disturbing for a number of reasons.  When similar comparisons were made between the Honors Geometry and Algebra 2 classes versus the corresponding regular Geometry and Algebra 2 the results showed more than a 50 point advantage to the honors classes.  In addition, a deeper exploration of the actual scores in Algebra 1 shows that an argument could be made that the honors group had poorer results than their regular counterparts.  Not surprisingly among all tested students the vast majority of the highest scores on the Algebra 1 exam were in the eighth-grade group.  These top-heavy results skew the average for this group higher.  The median or middle score for the high school Algebra 1 students was actually higher than the middle school.  When calculating the success of the bottom half of both groups, the “honors” classes performed at a significantly lower level.  As previously stated such results were not duplicated in the other math courses.

Finding the Problem

So what do all of these numerical gymnastics indicate? Does the blame for the shortcomings fall at the feet of the middle school teachers?  Are the testing procedures different in the high school?  Do high school teachers teach more to the test?  The answer to these questions is not a simple A, B or C or even “none of the above”.  The source of most of these poor performances is that too many of these young students were not ready to master the curriculum found in a legitimate Algebra 1 course.  The word “honors” is misplaced in front of Algebra 1 at the middle school in too many instances.  More importantly, these students then enter Geometry and Algebra 2 classes (honors or otherwise) with inferior skills and diminished potential compared to many of the students who took “regular” Algebra 1 in later years.  A letter to the Washington Post from a parent accurately described the plight of these students—they are destined to struggle in math and eventually grow to dislike the subject entirely.  These same results were observed by many of the classroom teachers working with these students in later math courses.  And the negatives are not necessarily limited to the math classroom.  For many adolescents such adverse results in math can spill over into their other subjects as well.  Just as in athletics, in school work, especially sequential topics, success begets success and sadly, failure can bring forth more failure.

Over the next two years the comparison between statistics of the two Algebra 1 groups became more discouraging as the percentage of students being placed early in Algebra 1 continued to increase. Is it any surprise that many high school math teachers are deeply concerned with what will happen when the pool of early Algebra 1 students is mandated to expand to 80% or more?

(Next:  Algebra 1 Is Good for Everyone but Not Every 8^th Grader)

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

An Overview:

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

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

A little bit of history

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

Should eighth-grade Algebra 1 be enlarged or abolished?

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

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

Who benefits; who suffers?

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:46 PM | Permalink

A recent article in the Washington Post questioned the wisdom of using scarce resources to purchase interactive whiteboards, which will soon be a fixture in one of every three classroom across the country. The article refers to the interactive whiteboard as nothing more than a “giant interactive computer screen that is usurping blackboards in classrooms across America -- locks teachers into a 19th-century lecture style of instruction counter to the more collaborative small-group models that many reformers favor.”

According to Larry Cuban, "There is hardly any research that will show clearly that any of these machines will improve academic achievement," said Larry Cuban, education professor emeritus at Stanford University. "But the value of novelty, that's highly prized in American society, period. And one way schools can say they are 'innovative' is to pick up the latest device."

Nancy Knowlton, the chief executive of SMART Technologies, a leading supplier of interactive whiteboards, countered “schools are desperate to find ways to engage multi-tasking, tech-savvy kids, who often play video games before they can read.”  Knowlton goes on to describe engaged students. "[Students] are engaged when they're in class, they are motivated, they are attending school, they are behaving and this is translating to student performance in the classroom," she said.

Whiteboards From a Principal’s Perspective

I must admit up front that I love gadgets. However, I am also a utilitarian. If a “gadget” will perform a task that I need doing, it has value to me. However, gadgetry for the sake of novelty is a waste of time and money. Next, I am an early adopter not an innovator, which simply means that I usually like to wait for the second iteration of a new product before I jump on board.

As a principal, I didn’t drink the whiteboard kool-aid. First, I didn’t have enough money to equip our classrooms. Second, I wasn’t sure if they would help to raise student achievement. So, I did what I always did. I asked the experts. No, I didn’t ask the company reps, nor was I able to find any research on the effectiveness on interactive whiteboards. It was simply too early in the products life to find any quality studies. Instead, I asked the real experts, our teachers.

Our Business teachers had been using interactive whiteboards, obtained through grant funds, for several years. So, they were the likely candidates for a small action research project.

Actually, what initially drew my attention to the issue of whiteboards was a request from the Business teachers for a rather sizeable purchase of expensive rubber mats most often used by clerks in retail stores, who are required to spend long hours standing in one spot. When I asked about the need for the purchase, the Business teachers told me that their constant use of the whiteboards forced them to stand in one place for most of the class period.

Stand in one spot in the classroom? That brought up the first red flag. Our school was one of the very few high schools that had defined instructional practices one of which was a Madeline Hunter-derived instructional delivery model. This model had a clear, specific vision of how a class should begin and how it should end. Standing in one spot on a rubber mat with a 2,000 lumen bulb shining in the teachers eyes all day long was not in our instructional model.

I had recently attended a conference where I saw a demonstration of a portable tablet-like device that allowed teachers to do the same things that they could do with an interactive whiteboard with some important differences. First, the teachers were no longer physically constrained and required to stand adjacent to the whiteboard. They could now move around the room. Second, while the teachers still needed an LCD projector, they didn’t need the expensive whiteboard. Third, they didn’t need to continually recalibrate the portable device. Fourth, they could hand the device to a student, who could then continue the work without the need to leave his or her seat. Finally, the cost was less than one-fourth the cost of the interactive whiteboard.

I was able to obtain a few of the portable devices on loan and I asked the Business teachers to use them in place of the interactive whiteboards. After a few weeks, I asked them for their opinions. All of them wanted to keep the portable devices, which meant that that interactive whiteboards would become high-priced low-tech whiteboards.

A Tool For Every Purpose

This is not to say that our school had no interactive whiteboards. We did. However, we purchased them based on need and intended use, not on the fact that is was more convenient to have every classroom in every department exactly the same. We didn’t believe in the “one size fits all approach” or in trying to squeeze a round peg into a square hole—force teachers to adapt their instruction to the technology instead of the technology serving the teacher.

We differentiated our approach just as we asked our teachers to differentiate their instructional approaches. No, this wasn’t convenient for us, but very little of what we did that worked helped students in our school was about our convenience. Convenience was about adult wants not student needs. Our choice of a course of action was always based on the fact that it would improve learning.

Technology: What Good Is It?

Technology is a tool to improve student learning. Technology can increase student interest and motivation, reinforce learning, offer self-paced practice, and create a low-threat, high-interest learning environment. Technology cannot replace the teacher. Technology is not a replacement for a quality teacher-student relationship. Technology cannot make a bad teacher into a good teacher. However, technology can help a good teacher become an even better and more productive teacher.

What is Engagement?

Whiteboards don’t engage students. Teachers engage students!

I was on a panel discussion at a recent literacy conference. Also on the panel were Dr. Michael Kamil of Stanford, and Dr. Anita Archer. Dr. Archer made a point of defining student engagement in a way that every school leader can understand. She said, “Students are engaged when they are interacting with the teacher and with other students.” I like Dr. Archer’s definition on engagement much more than Nancy Knowlton’s.

While students might enjoy “energized, multimedia” productions, I am not sure that that is how we want to define student engagement. Student engagement is lot more than students attending school, sitting in their seats, and behaving.

Classroom management expert, Fred Jones, always reminded us “It is not our (teachers’) job to have the students watch while we work. It is our (teachers’) job to watch while they (students) work.” Students don’t learn by watching the teacher. Students learn when they are doing/interacting. If technology, properly used and implemented with fidelity, increases student engagement/interaction, it should translate into increased academic achievement. If not, then it is merely a novelty. In these tough economic times, we need to focus on the necessities and all the novelties and niceties need to take a back seat.

Whiteboards are neither good nor bad. They are either useful or not useful in improving student achievement. Whiteboards are a tool not an end in and of themselves.

Note: A technology integration specialist told me that K-6 teachers liked the interactive whiteboards because their students loved to come to the front of the class and touch them. According to this specialist, this was the reason high school teachers did not like them as much. They didn’t want their students walking around the classroom during class.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

The Best of Plans; the Worst of Plans

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

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

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

An Equally Worst Plan

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

Next:  The case against Algebra 1 for everyone

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

The Wrong Solution for the Wrong Problem

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

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

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

Better Arguments

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

Extinction by Improvement

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:38 PM | Permalink

In a recent post, we reported that early reading success predicted later algebra success, which, in turn, predicted college success. The reading, math, success connection is clear and unmistakable. The bottom line is that there is very little that students can do if they cannot read. Simply put, reading skills are the best indicator of current and future student success.

A recent study indicates that reading skills are the best predictor of future success and earning power. However, two-thirds of third graders students are reading below the proficient level and the situation is not improving.

The persistence of the "achievement gap," often attributed to differences in family incomes and first languages, is "profoundly disappointing to all of us who see school success and high school graduation as beacons in the battle against intergenerational poverty," wrote Leila Feister, the author of the report, "Early Warning! Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters" from the Annie B. Casey Foundation.

To get all students reading at grade level by the end of third grade, the foundation report offered these recommendations:

• Improve health and education in early childhood, starting with healthy births.
• Encourage and enable parents and caregivers to be involved in children's educations. Families should read to and converse with their kids to help develop language skills.
• Use data-driven initiatives to transform low-performing schools into high-quality teaching and learning environments.
• Reduce the chronic absences
• Reduce summer learning loss that often contributes to the under-achievement of children from low-income families

Principal Pointers

• Even though the report focuses on early readers, it has important implications for secondary leaders:
• Due to the fact that most schools stop reading instruction at the end of the third grade, it is highly unlikely that student will improve reading skills on their own.
• Under-resourced students need explicit literacy instruction at every grade level or their skills will not improve.
• Even if every third grader were reading at the proficient level, we would need to continue literacy instruction at every grade level in order to compensate for the lack or language enrichment that under-resourced students experience outside of the school.
• The longer we wait to rescue struggling readers the more challenging is our task.
• Remediation is expensive, time consuming, and often not successful.

We cannot afford to allow students to fall farther and farther behind. We must intervene early and often.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:54 PM | Permalink

We hear more and more about the fact that high school graduates are not being adequately prepared for college. Texas alone spends over $200 million on what they call “developmental education—reteaching basic skills in reading, writing, and math” to high school graduates.

We recently reported that one of three students takes at least one remedial course in college and that those who take a remedial course are much less likely to graduate. Clearly, this is an unacceptable situation. However, as is usually the case, there is more to the story. So, let’s take a look at this situation from the perspective of a high school principal.

Why do colleges admit students who are clearly not qualified? Colleges continually pull the rug out from under our (principals’) feet by admitting marginal students who have little or no chance of graduating from their institution.

We repeatedly warn our students that if they don’t take rigorous courses and earn a good grade-point-average, they will not be admitted to college and the colleges turn right around and admit them. Yet, colleges keep admitting them.

When colleges admit unqualified students everyone loses--students, families, colleges, and high schools. Students and their families lose financially. Colleges lose credibility and their reputation is tarnished. High schools find it more and more difficult to motivate students.

High schools have a hard time motivating students when they know that their friends were admitted with less than stellar academic records. Students are confused by the mixed message they receive. Who should they believe?

Colleges graduate less than half of the students within six years. Remember, they admit these students. So, either colleges admission people have no idea what they are doing, or they know exactly what they are doing. My money is on the latter. The bottom line is that colleges are admitting students, who they know have little or no chance of graduating. In fact, some have a better chance of winning the lottery. I have told students many times, “They (colleges) will be more than happy to accept your money and send you home deep in debt.”

I am not against colleges admit under-resourced students if they are willing to provide additional resources and supports to those students. Knowingly admitting students who are unlikely to graduate and not providing them the resources they need is malpractice.

High school principals and teachers work to raise student skill levels so that they can take higher-level courses in high school. Success on an AP or IB exam is a strong predictor of college success. We work hard to encourage students to take high-level math and science courses only to have admissions officers tell the students that they don’t need to take Calculus in high school. So, the students drop the classes. Two deans of engineering schools told me that they didn’t encourage students to take Calculus in high school because they wanted them to take it on campus. “We want students with a solid background in Algebra.” I wonder why?

The shame of it all is that our students are very capable of doing much better work and taking more rigorous courses. We adults have to set the system up so that it encourages persistence and hard work and discourages students from taking the easy way out--the path of least resistance.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:17 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

The 7 Keys to College Readiness are as follows:

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

Principal Pointers

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

A Case Study

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

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

Something to think about

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

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

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

First Evaluate the Teachers

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

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

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

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

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

Then Reward the Schools           

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:44 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

The Facts

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

The Bottom Line

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

Next: Summer School – Part 2

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:53 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

An Interview That Works

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

The key to a successful school is a high-quality teaching staff.  We have previously discussed the use of a comprehensive and sophisticated evaluation process to eliminate weak educators and improve strong ones. The next two steps are designed to secure the highest potential hires.  First, there needs to be a determination of which candidates should be offered interviews. Once the best applicants have been ascertained the critical next step is the actual interview.

Getting the Right People Involved 

The interviewing and hiring process should be a collaborative effort with the major decision making given to the two individuals most directly involved in the development of these teachers—the department chair and the supervising assistant principal. The chair is particularly crucial.  No one understands the precise needs of a department better than the chair.  Like any good team, there needs to be “positive chemistry” within a department.   Only someone who clearly understands these subtleties can best determine which candidates would mesh most effectively.  My goal in hiring was to create a group of individuals who collectively would gain from the strengths of their colleagues and offset the weaknesses of others.  I always wanted a blend of extensive successful experience and new ideas, conservative approaches and experimenters, and overall a group poised at varying positions on their career paths.  One cannot underestimate the importance of this aspect in building a successful department.  And no one can articulate it as well as the chair. 

Another reason for the significant role of the chair is a reflection of my experiences when I was not a part of the process. All too often, I would meet the new members of my team on the first day of school.  Such timing is hardly conducive to building the crucial relationship necessary between a teacher and chair.  Conversely, a leadership position in the hiring process sends a clear message to all new staff members that the chair has the influence required to help them with any future concerns.  The importance of establishing this “mid-level” management has been previously discussed.  (Two Roles Diverge Part1, Part 2, Part 3).

Everyone Should Have Questions

The best method to accurately determine the potential of prospective teachers involves a multi-layered approach to assess their philosophy, personality, background, and communication skills.  A static question and answer session around a conference table is an approach unlikely to reveal true insights into the future success or failure of the individual.  An alternative approach utilizing several different techniques is likely to conclude with significantly superior results.

The interview process should be a ‘two-way” communication.  While the school representatives are assessing the candidate through a series of questions, they should also carefully explain the makeup of the student body, an overview of the current department personnel and the nature of administrative support and expectations. In addition, the interviewee should be strongly encouraged to ask questions about the educational environment within the building.  Many good teachers and successful schools are not a perfect fit.  On several occasions, teachers in my school who were underperforming found great success after transferring.  This disparity of achievement is not a reflection on either the teacher or the school but rather on the paring of the two.  I also had several teachers who, to shorten their commute, moved to another location and later lamented that they were not nearly as happy or productive at their new location.  A few transferred back.  Making a determination on this variable before finalizing employment is beneficial to everyone involved.  And an open and honest conversation about the topic is the surest way to make that occur.

Questions That Ask a Great Deal

The inquiries posed to prospective teachers should elicit as much introspection as possible.  A successful interview would reveal a candidate’s beliefs on such topics as the reasons some students fail to achieve, how to reach different learning styles within a classroom, the most productive student/teacher relationship, and classroom management approaches.  Some of my personal favorites include:

• What is your favorite topic in your curriculum?  How would you share that enthusiasm with your students?
• Next October when I visit your class, what facet of that lesson will impress me the most?
• During that same visit what will be the most notable aspect of the classroom environment?
• For which teaching issues would you be most likely to solicit input from the department chair?

When the Questioning Stops

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

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

One Last Thought

Your new hires can be a great resource for future interviews.  I always asked them why they chose to accept our offer and how our process compared to others.  These conversations revealed some amazing stories, which I will share in a forthcoming post, and gave me excellent insights into the continual improvement of our hiring procedures.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:23 AM | Permalink

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

According to a recent study, placing literacy coaches in schools can help boost students’ reading skills by as much as 32 percent over a three year period. Although the study involved elementary students, I believe that the findings have direct implications for secondary schools. This study is among the first in a new generation of research that helps school leaders identify not only what works but also when, under what conditions, and to some extent, why.

Here are some of the key points of the research:

• Reading gains were greatest in schools where teachers received more coaching.
• More coaching took place in schools where teachers felt they had a voice in what went on in their building and where professional networks among teachers were already strong.
• Schools that employed targeted teaching routines more often in their classes had the biggest gains in reading achievement.
• Having an instructional system in place accelerated the process of teacher learning.

Implications for School Leaders

1. Fidelity of implementation is the key to success. Even the best programs implemented poorly will not raise achievement.
2. Direct, explicit instruction raises student achievement and the same can be said for teachers. Direct, explicit coaching focused on targeted teaching routines will improve student achievement.
3. Students, particularly struggling students, respond positively to recognizable classroom routines.
4. Having a school wide instructional model or system sets both students and teachers up for success.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:45 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Creating the Right Measuring Stick

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

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

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

A Flawed Procedure

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

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

The Wrong Person for the Job

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

Putting the “Value” Into Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

Next:  Determining the best candidates

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:22 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

A number of recent postings have detailed various aspects of the highly successful “Algebra Project”.  This intense study of a unique approach to an introductory high school math course is not directed exclusively at those people who are preoccupied with solving quadratic equations or graphing lines.  Hopefully this path to creating a plan to improve student performance in a particular subject can serve as a template that can be modified and tailored to address issues throughout the curriculum. 

A Word of Warning

There is little question that positive student achievement, especially in a school with high poverty and ELL rates, is the mother of many good feelings.  Students become energized, parents are thrilled, teachers and counselors gain a sense of professional accomplishment and the administrative team is confident their school is headed in the right direction.  Unfortunately, this positive response to the significant improvement in our math barrier exam pass rates was not universal.  As these scores soared to the top levels of the district Mel Riddile was well aware of the potential politics of the situation.  He gave me advice that proved extremely useful during the  unpleasant moments he knew were awaiting us.  “We are succeeding because we are working harder and smarter.  But remember this:  when you are doing better than other people, they have two choices.  They can do the hard thing—ask what you are doing, study it and try to use that knowledge to improve their situation.  Or they can take the easy way and simply say you must be doing something that is deceitful or even unethical.”  

Plenty of Followers

Over the years I have spoken about the philosophy of the math department to educators from all corners of the country.  Teachers and administrators from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia, Texas and beyond would relate to me their struggles to raise student performance.  In response I would explain the obstacles we faced, the methods we used to measure our success and the various plans we implemented.  The question-and-answer sessions often became an exercise in group therapy.  The sense of desperation at these meetings was palpable.  Their schools had serious, entrenched problems and they were seeking models that were flourishing from which they could adapt new strategies.  When we adjourned there was a flood of requests for copies of my Powerpoint explanations, my email and phone number and in some cases job offers.  Many of these districts did adopt portions of our plans for their schools.

On the Other Hand

As Riddile had warned, not everyone was as excited about our achievements.  Interestingly almost all of these assaults came from within the school district.  During a break at a system-wide K-12 math chair meeting, the Coordinator of ELL sat down next to me and asked, “So how are you getting those scores?  We figure you must be hiding kids to keep them from testing.”  Her reference to “hiding” was the assumption that we were placing weak students who we felt could not pass the exam into classes that would both prevent them from testing and ultimately diminish their chances of graduation.  My initial response to her insinuation was shock.   After I recovered, I invited her to come to our school and visit our classrooms.  I also offered to sit down with her and anyone else to explain every aspect of our program.  She said that would be interesting but then warned me “It would have to be a very big meeting.  There are a lot of people throughout the district who feel the same way.”  Unfortunately that offer was never accepted.  If it had been I would have shared with anyone who attended a slide from my powerpoint presentation entitled: “Can We Sleep at Night?”

High School accountability has brought out the best in our schools and the worst.  Many schools have responded to the challenge with creativity, greater focus, and sacrifice.  Others have employed tactics that are at best questionable in terms of ethics.  In addition, great success in any field of endeavor brings scrutiny.   Our math program changes at semester are designed to ensure the most appropriate placement possible.  It is extremely critical to understand that this is not a ploy to avoid the state exam.  It is a program to ensure that our students are prepared when they take the state exam.  Once again, last year the students who had been moved to Algebra 1 part 1 the previous year took Algebra 1 part 2 and an end-of-course exam.  100% of these students passed that exam.  For the math teachers of our school, that statistic is worth virtually any price.

This paragraph had been written long before any accusations had come forth.  Throughout the entire process of creating the Algebra 1 program the most important question being considered at all times was “Is this program ethical and does it best serve the needs of the students at our school?”  These conversations occurred before implementation and continued afterward.  As student success and achievement increased year after year the answers were obviously “yes”.

A Little Background

Our school district is extremely economically diverse.  When we first introduced our program it had twenty-four high schools with free and reduced lunch rates ranging from less than 1% to our 54%.  No other school had a percentage above 36 at the time.  In broad terms there were four basic groups.  One was very affluent (less than 8%), the next moderately so (between 8% and 18%); some where the impact was significant (18% to 26%) and then the schools where poverty was a major issue (26% to 54%).   During the latter part of the 1990s I referred to our scores as the “best of the worst”.  We consistently finished better than the five or six other schools with the highest levels of poverty, but by the beginning of the new century as the Algebra 1 program became more refined and successful, the comparisons were dramatically altered.  The school’s scores were now among the top ten in the district and several times rose to the top five.  

A Surprise Ambush

Not everyone was greeting this level of success with equal enthusiasm.  The year after my interaction with the ELL coordinator, the principal moved to a new school.  Within two months of the next school year I was “invited” to a meeting with the district’s Coordinator of Instruction and the Coordinator of Math as well as the school administrative team.  I asked if I needed to bring any items and was told it was scheduled to be an informal discussion of overall math program and no preparation was necessary.  I soon discovered that was not the case.  In a presentation involving dozens of pages of “documentation” our program was accused of “stock piling” students (a new word for hiding) and of reckless disregard for ethical behavior.  I sat for an hour empty handed and dumbfounded.  I was told that consultations would follow between the district Leadership Team and the principal to “resolve” the issues raised.

Fortunately there was a happy ending to this story.  I immediately contacted the Assistant Superintendent responsible for our school.  I explained to her what had happened and in a one-on-one meeting with her shared with her the data and philosophy of our math program.  Her response was two sentences—“This is a wonderful program.  We are going to schedule a second meeting and this time you will be the one talking”.    That second meeting (chaired by the Assistant Superintendent) had a very different tone and outcome. This time we had copies of our statistics, handouts, etc. and our math program was to remain unchanged.  

One Last Hurdle

The director of guidance who was so instrumental to our program’s success was promoted to a position at the district level and her replacement was less than enthusiastic about the program.  He questioned the propriety of the format and requested a meeting with the district’s coordinator of guidance.  He and I presented our cases to the coordinator in a small conference room at the school.  After listening to both sides, his response was, “This program really seems to be working for the students (At this point our pass rate had risen to 76%).  Keep up the good work.”  It was the last time we discussed this issue.

By the end of the year the director had transferred to another school.  Within two years he became an assistant principal and one of the subjects under his supervision was math.  A few months later he called to proudly share that his school had implemented exactly the same program for their Geometry classes.  Go figure.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:25 AM | Permalink

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

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

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

The 80-15-5 Rule

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

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

Collaboration Leads to Cooperation

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

I am not a good guesser! Are you?

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

Silos of Expertise

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

No Messes

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

High fences make good neighbors

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

Peer Pressure is a Great Thing

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

One last thought

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

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

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

An Issue of Professional Courtesy and Responsibility

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

Answering to a Higher Authority

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

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

Learning to Co-exist

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

The Fine Line Between Process and Bureaucracy

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

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

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

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

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

Perfect Should Not Be the Enemy of the Good

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

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

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

Can You Keep a Secret?

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:05 AM | Permalink

Washington Post Writer, Mark Fisher was asked to serve on a selection panel to choose candidates for a fellowship program. Although Fisher has written about education, his teaching experience is limited to colleges. His experience raises some familiar questions that school reform gurus are at a loss to answer:

- “Get rid of bad teachers and bring in good ones, the reformers say.” The experts want to fire the principals because they haven’t done the most important thing—get rid of the worst teachers. Ask school leaders about firing bad teachers and they will tell you that, in many cases, that it is next to impossible. Recently, Arne Duncan, when asked about “first in first out” by superintendents, he agreed that “If we are serious about transformational change, we have to put this (seniority) on the table.” If that is the case then let’s address that issue first and give school leaders a chance to make changes before we fire them. Don’t get me wrong, the last thing that school leaders want to do is fire anyone. However, the fact that it is next to impossible to do so in many districts creates a sense of entitlement among teachers and a sense of hopelessness among principals and assistant principals. The current situation frustrates good teachers as much as it does school leaders.

- But how do you know who's good -- especially if they've never taught a kid in their lives?” Here is the ultimate question. It seems that everyone has an opinion on what makes a great teacher, and that is the problem. We need to fix this.

What Should You Look For

The rubric used to evaluate candidates contained the following:

- “Do candidates believe that all children can think and learn, or do they see kids as problems?”

- “Who has the personal strength and skills to persevere and connect with students?”

- “Who feels called to teach?”

Are Great Teachers Born or Made?

Fisher believes that “Part of the problem with the school reform movement is the idea that great teachers are born, not made.” Some experts believe that, if teachers are in the profession for the right reasons, they can be molded or trained. Others believe that great teachers are both born and made.

Something to think about: I cannot remember hearing anyone say that, great lawyers, surgeons, pilots, or accountants are born not made. These professionals must be educated, trained, and have years of professional experience to reach the top of their profession. Yet, when it comes to teaching many believe that, “you know one when you see one.” No one gives a new member of the firm their most important client, but in schools, we routinely give our neediest students to our newest, least skilled teachers. Maybe we ought to rethink that?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:25 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

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

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

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

Starting At the Beginning

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

Building a New Model  

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

Better But Not Best

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

Getting Everyone On Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:05 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

A Good Snowball Effect

One of the main reasons for implementing our innovative approach to Algebra 1 was the extremely large number of ELL (English Language Learner) students at our school.  But this program was not the only critical adjustment we made for this population.  For this segment of the student body we found the best math sequence was enrolling in Algebra 2 after passing Algebra 1.  Geometry would then be taken the next year thus allowing the maximum amount of time to strengthen their English skills.  We also found that for most at-risk students whether ELL or not, this path worked better since it did not place a school year between the Algebra courses.  This philosophy plus the success of the two-year programs resulted in unprecedented numbers of students entering into the Algebra 2 classes.  While this was news to delight the hearts of the entire school community, there were some fundamental problems.  

No Good Program Goes Unpunished

As previously documented, one of the compelling reasons for the modified Algebra 1 program in addition to our demographics was the fact that the top 50% of our math students took Algebra 1 in middle school.  The typical high school first year Algebra class is populated with many students with a history of difficulties in math.  But this segregation disappears after Algebra 1.  That top half of the eighth graders takes Geometry in their freshman year and enrolls in the second year of Algebra as sophomores.  While many move into honors sections, a large number are in the standard classrooms.  For the traditional Algebra 1 students this pairing was not a problem.  However, it became quickly apparent that the new wave of “two-credit” Algebra 1 graduates were struggling with the speed, intensity and the competition of this next level.  Teachers were finding it increasingly difficult to construct a curriculum that would effectively meet the needs of students on the path to calculus and others whose main goal was to acquire that elusive third math credit for graduation.  

Same Song, Different Verse

The Algebra 2 teachers met to discuss this dilemma.  We could pretend that placing this   academically diverse pool of students in the same room could work but we had already seen that was not realistic.  We could mandate that the teachers find a way to differentiate instruction to meet the far-flung student needs but while that approach sounds good on paper it is a formula for low teacher morale and frustration neither of which would improve student performance.  The consensus view was that additional time and the consistency of meeting every day were the factors that had created success in Algebra 1 for these students.  It was decided that to ensure their continued success there needed to be a double block Algebra 2.  The problem was that unlike Algebra 1 the state only offered one credit for the course.  I met with my principal and the director of guidance to advocate for the formation of the class.  Both were supportive of the idea but were leery about whether we could convince the school community to devote the equivalent of two years for one credit. To determine if double block Algebra 2 was indeed workable, one of my teachers volunteered to pilot a test class and the experiment began.

One Small, Careful Step at a Time

I spoke recently on the phone to that volunteer to get his recollections of the process which began in the 2002-03 school year.

“I made a big mistake the first year.  I recruited the students who had shown the greatest difficulty with the two-year Algebra 1 for the one double block Algebra 2.  But what I did wrong was to teach that class differently from my three regular Algebra 2 sections.  The double block kids did okay, 15 out of 24 (62%) passed the end-of-course exam, which was above the state average, but they were well below the 75% I had in the standard classes. The next year is when we figured it out.  I taught the one double block exactly the same as the regular.  They all had the same assignments, quizzes, and tests.  The only difference was the amount of time.  The results were amazing.  Remember, I was working with the bottom group in terms of talent for the double block versus a much stronger group in the regular.  The class average for the double block was one point less than the regular and they had identical pass rates on the state tests—above 80% which was better than the district average.”

We had found the formula for success.  Now we had to sell it.  My volunteer and I began the “Double Block Algebra 2 Tour”.  We presented the data to the other math teachers, counselors, PTSA members and the administrative team.  Our most compelling point for parents was that while the cost was high, two periods of a student’s day, that price was acceptable for the result—a third math credit and a passing score on the barrier exam.  Perhaps the best salespeople were the students themselves who were regaling their peers with stories of their success in the previously daunting Algebra 2 classes.   Two years later (2005-06) 120 of our Algebra 2 students (about 40%) were in the double block and the results were stunning.  On the state exams our overall pass rate for Algebra 2 was 96%, which with the exception of the magnet school was the top average in the district.  There were some surprising consequences. An old educational maxim was turned upside down—with an opportunity to work with weak students in a format that would result in success, teachers were volunteering to have the double block classes.  Other departments began to consider finding ways to create similar courses.  One additional word of caution is required.  There is a common misconception that double block courses require additional staffing.  If such classes have the usual complement of students that concern is unfounded.  There will be a shifting of teacher resources to the departments offering this format but no overall positions would be jeopardized.

A Few Words of Warning

Every educational innovation should be introduced slowly under controlled conditions, reevaluated regularly and altered whenever necessary.  In this particular endeavor guidance counselors and math teachers were key.  They had to clearly understand which individuals would benefit from such a program.  Double block classes are not the answer to all student shortcomings.  Attendance and behavior issues are not resolved by twice as much class time.  Nor should the double block be a dumping ground for unprepared students.  Building in flexibility in changing schedules is paramount.  Teachers should consistently monitor their students and move them into the proper placement whenever necessary.

No Good Program Goes Unpunished Part 2

Because of the unprecedented success of the Algebra 2 program, a flood of students was now enrolling in geometry.  So, I met with the director of guidance and the principal and, well, you know the rest of the story.  Luckily, they are both still speaking to me.  That is because one trait they shared in common was that they really like student success.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:14 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

I live in the Washington, D.C. area, so lately I have had a great deal of time on my hands.  Combine fifty-five inches of snow in a six-week period with a garage at the bottom of a steep, 140-foot private drive that contains a Prius, which in even a light snow becomes a marvelously fuel-efficient sled, you have a formula for large doses of reflection and some serious television viewing.  Because of my winter-enforced downtime I watched more of the Super Bowl coverage than I usually do.  And it struck me that there is a vast difference in the degree of scrutiny given to educators compared with athletes and coaches.  I began to wonder just how CBS Sports would cover the educational scene.  Perhaps it would go something like this.

Live From Room 263

“Good afternoon, I am Billy Cox and I would like to welcome all of you to room 263 at Walter Reed High School for today’s live coverage of Mr. Jacob Morris’s third period Pre-Calculus class.  We are just a few minutes away from one of the most important educational sessions of this school year as the class reaches the end of the study of probability and statistics. The students are preparing to take a critical exam that culminates weeks of intense study and a fascinating set of strategic twists and turns by Morris.  Joining me in the booth is our panel of expert analysts who will assist me in discussing what we may be seeing today.  Johnny Simpson, you taught math for fifteen years in one of the toughest teaching districts in America before having to leave the profession due to a crippling series of career-ending financial setbacks. Tell us what we should be looking for today in this classic match- up between recalcitrant students and a challenging curriculum.”

“Well, Billy, I have to say I have been a bit disappointed in Morris’s approach.  After watching tapes of previous classes and speaking with a number of the students since we arrived here to cover this class, I have to admit I don’t like what I am seeing or hearing.  I think Morris continues to be soft on his students.  His worksheets are far too simple and he doesn’t assign enough homework on the statistic’s portion of the course.  He’s making the classic mistake of allowing too much freedom in the hopes of raising morale at the cost of discipline and focus.  When those tests are graded the stats portion is going to be a very, very big disappointment.”

“If you are correct and Morris’s test scores are low, what’s your prediction for his future?”

“Let’s get real here.  There’s a lot of young teaching talent in this building and I have heard from reliable sources at other schools that there’s going to be some veteran pre-calculus teachers available for next year.  I also have information from an unnamed authority that the original decision to elevate Morris to this honors class did not sit well with many of his colleagues. Don’t be surprised if Morris is teaching at a charter school in the near future.”

“And you think this could have been avoided?”

“Absolutely Billy.  I faced that same stats issue many times in my own classes but the one I remember best was back in 1997.  My kids were struggling, their grades were in a deep slump, and my response was to get tougher.  If this class doesn’t turn it around for Morris he could soon be on the outside looking in.  Bottom line— in this business it is not ‘What have you done?’ but ‘What have you done lately?’”

“Thanks Johnny.  Let’s turn to Isabel Regnis a retired short-term high school principal, long-term classroom expert.  So Principal Regnis, if you were the principal of Morris’s school what would you be doing to prevent the educational rout Johnny is talking about?”

“I have to say if Johnny is right, I would step in and try to change the direction of this class.  Look, if I’m the administrator who put this guy in front of these students then it’s my responsibility to turn the situation around regardless of what it takes.  At the end of the day when they analyze the data of this class and the others in the building and the final standings within the system come out, it is easy to tell which schools have a winning approach and which ones need to rebuild. The hard, cold truth is that I have to answer to the community.  My job is based on the students’ performance and I have to make sure they stay at the top.  Two years ago on this very set you and I talked about Eric Lawrence of Robert Michael High School.”

“Oh, we all remember him quite well.  He was the next “great thing” in education. Had been on a hot streak for about six years—high-test scores, great evaluations, excellent feedback from colleagues.  It seemed like every educator out there was using his lesson plans.”

“Yes, Billy, but then he went away from the things that got him to where he was.   You know, working on the fundamentals, establishing early in the course a solid review system, reducing classroom distractions.  Instead he decided to get just a little too cute and BOOM he’s trading all of the tried and true approaches for the new glitzy stuff like pod-casts, on-line discussion groups and even teleconferencing with other school systems.  After three years of terrible scores, his support base in the community and the school faded and the program was, well, the program was dead.  The last I heard of him he was an instructional assistant at a day care center.”

“And you see this for Morris?”

“From where we sit watching his approach I have to say it is potentially a losing situation and you know what that means.”

“I hate to interrupt but Morris is now at the board and he’s reviewing the concept of standard deviation.  What do you think so far Johnny?”

“Billy, this is what I was afraid of.  Although Morris is doing a decent job of explaining the concept, he has been quite solid in linking the mean and the various distances of each data point, I just don’t think he is putting enough pressure on the students.  Here is my breakdown:  look at the third student in row two that I have circled with the telestrator, he appears to have fallen asleep!  And on the other side of the room this girl, let me draw an arrow toward her, is looking at a history book!  I’ve got to tell you, he is one fire drill away from losing everything.”

“Whoa, Johnny, Morris just called on Dave Smith one of his weakest students.  What do you think of that tactical move, Principal Regnis?”

“A bold high-risk move to say the least.  The safe, conservative choice would have been to start with Ethan Scott, one of his best students.  I think this could be a game changer if it works.  But if Smith doesn’t know the answer or makes a joke, this gamble could deep-six the entire game plan.  I have to tell you, I wouldn’t have gone for this move so early in the period.”

“I can’t believe what I am seeing, with only the slightest bit of prodding Smith answered the question correctly and suddenly two other students have raised their hands and are asking valid questions.  What do you think Johnny?”

“Unbelievable gut check for Morris and his entire class!  I agree with Principal Regnis, I don’t think I would have gone for it either, especially with so much time left in the class.  But that’s why I always say we actually allow the teachers to teach the classes instead of just letting the pundits decide the outcome.  But while this was a good move, there is still the remainder of the review and the test left to complete.  Right now this move will get good play in the media although I hate to think what the blogosphere would be saying if those two students with their hands up were asking to go to the restroom.”

“And panel, don’t forget he has to teach the same lesson to his fifth period later today. And that class is AFTER the lunch break.  I have to tell you this kind of excitement never gets old.”

Three, Two, One and That’s a Wrap

In addition to the football coverage, I also watched the State of the Union Address and   read a number of movie reviews.   Obviously, our politicians and actors receive analyses equally brutal to that of our athletes.  While the type of evaluative process described above does not lend itself well to education, it does speak to a larger, more difficult issue.  What is the proper level and method of scrutiny for our school systems, administrators and teachers?   How can we find effective ways to analyze our work?  I believe that education needs to toughen up and recognize that often it is just this kind of hard-hitting criticism that helps people raise their level of performance.  We need to find methods to determine how educators at all levels are doing and how they are doing it.  

Comments?  What do you think?  Have you found a specific method of evaluation that you feel gives superior results to all others?  

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:48 PM | Permalink

Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things. Such is the case with the Algebra Project as described by The Teacher Leader.

The Teacher Leader introduces us to the teacher nightmare—failing students sitting in classrooms with no hope and no reason to try. Sound familiar? This time of the school year, failing, disengaged students are traumatizing their teachers and distracting their peers. We learn again that misery loves miserable company.

Waiting until March or April to solve the problem is too late. Once students fall behind, it is extremely difficult to catch them up. Students, teachers, and schools pay the high cost for student failure.

The key is not to let students fall behind in the first place. But that takes planning and the solutions are often not convenient or easy to implement.

The Teacher Leader was willing to pay the price to set up both students and teachers for success. His amazing breakthrough story reminds us that education and teaching are not zero-sum games in which some win and some lose. When students fail, we all lose.

From a principal perspective:

- The bottom line: In the first year of the state assessments only 32% of the students scored at proficient or above. The school’s Algebra scores had to be at or above 70% within two years in order to receive state accreditation. Not only did the Teacher Leader’s math teachers exceed 70%, but they consistently averaged in the high 90% range. These remarkable results were achieved with the same demographics including high poverty, high second-language, and high student mobility, and essentially the same teachers. National Geographic Magazine called this high school “the most diverse school in America.”

Collaborative Leadership – 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.

Student-focused – The key to the success of this effort was the mission-focus of the teachers, counselors, administrators, and the principal. Student achievement and student success took precedence over adult convenience.

Use data – The Teacher Leader used data to guide the effort. Intuition took a backseat to the facts. Students were failing and he wanted that to change.

Start small – The Teacher Leader started his “double block” Algebra Project with one or two teachers. When the results indicated success, the effort was expanded to include more teachers. Instead of mandating an approach to be followed by all math teachers, The Teacher Leader used volunteers to test out the idea. For example, in the first attempt almost half of the students who were failing algebra at the semester were earning Cs by the end of the school year.

Work with the willing – The Teacher Leader wanted the support of all the math teachers but he needed the participation of key volunteers who really wanted the program to work.

Whatever it takes – The Algebra Project was an experiment. No one had tried it before. Everyone involved had to be willing to do whatever it took to realize success.

Ultimately, the success of the Algebra Project was due to a commonly held set of core beliefs.

- All students can learn to high levels.

- All students can and should be held to high standards.

- Given time, all students can learn.

- Learning time is relevant. Learning outcomes are absolute.

- Failure is not an option. Students can only fail if they quit, because we (staff) will never give up.

- Never blame the students. Find another way.

- We (staff) drive the bus. Whatever happens here is up to us.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:58 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In his recent post, “If your school has high course failure rates, it’s about time!“, Mel Riddile states the need for imagination and creativity to ensure success for all students.   After reading this post, I was reminded of the situation my school faced in 1997 when we had a growing failure rate in our math program.  The steps we took can serve as an example of the types of innovation Riddile is advocating.

Establishing the Fundamentals                                       

In order to build a successful high school math program, the first step is to build a strong Algebra 1 program.  Because of the sequential nature of mathematics students without a solid foundation in Algebra 1 will have great difficulty succeeding in Geometry and Algebra 2.  Consequently, when we began to restructure the math curriculum at my high school we initiated the majority of our changes in Algebra 1. 

The Ingredients For Student Success

Years of experience had clearly demonstrated that student success in Algebra 1 would depend on a number of variables:

1.  Allow students extra contact time with the curriculum and teacher

2.  Continuity of instruction

3.  Appropriate student placement

4.  Smaller class size for Algebra 1

5.  Increase rigor and raise expectations

Obviously the question is how to create a program that would give our students some or all of these options.  The first step was obvious but not simple.

Getting the staff on board

A goal of 100% success in Algebra 1 would require a great deal of sacrifice on the part of the teachers in the math department, the guidance staff and the school’s administrators. It also requires a very special group of dedicated educators.  It cannot be overemphasized the importance of such professionals.  Our first step was to share with the math teachers the need to focus a great portion of our resources on the most at-risk of our students.  Teachers had to be willing to give up some of the luxuries of past schedules in order for changes to be made.  Upper level courses became much larger in size.  With the addition of more remedial courses teachers had to accept the likelihood that they would teach more of these kinds of classes and have more potential preparations.  Once the teachers were on board the next discussions were with the counseling staff.  They quickly understood that many of our proposals would create additional work and stress the master schedule.  But again the realization that these changes could aid our at-risk students trumped any personal concerns.  And of course, the support of the administrative staff was critical.  They are the ones who would have to deal with any questions or concerns that might be raised as the community and the district assessed what was occurring at the school.  Once all of these commitments had been obtained the next step was the program itself.

The Playing Field

When the state began its end-of-course barrier exam program in 1997 the goal for school accreditation was a passing rate of 70%.  But the reality was very different.  Since students needed a verified credit in Math to graduate, every student who did not pass the Algebra 1 test was in a very weak position.  Consequently, anything less than 90-100% was problematic.  But achieving such a level of success would not be easy.  There are some inherent problems in high school Algebra 1.  About 50% of all students take Algebra 1 in the Middle School.  Consequently, the average ninth-grade Algebra 1 class consists of students who rank in the lower half of the student body in terms of math skills.  Not only have the best students been removed but also more importantly this collection of weaker students has virtually no good student role models to emulate in the classroom. 

The Tools Available

The state required all students to pass three math classes at or above the level of Algebra 1 in order to graduate.  At least one of those credits must be verified by passing the state’s end-of-year exam.   Algebra 1 Part 1 and Algebra 1 can count as two of those three credits.  At the time, every school in the district placed students in either a full year of Algebra 1 part 1 or Algebra 1 by some form of recommendation made in the eighth grade. 

Finding the Problem

Long before the advent of testing, data clearly indicated that the Algebra 1 Part 1 / Algebra 1 approach was ineffective.  A study of student performance district-wide revealed that many students who made grades of “A” or “B” in the Part 1 classes were struggling in Algebra 1.  Students with lesser grades had little hope of success.  The Math Coordinator of Instruction for the system determined that because the classes were heavily impacted by the weakness of the students that only about 30% of the material in Algebra 1 was being studied.  Consequently students entering Algebra 1 part 2 knew significantly less than half of the material needed to pass the course.  An additional if less significant problem was that many students were incorrectly placed in Algebra 1 and had to either be moved back at some point in the school year or fail the class.  Regardless of which area was being scrutinized, it was clear the program was not working. 

Finding the Solution(s)

Some schools are ethnically diverse; some are not.  But all schools are diverse when assessing learning styles.  To ensure success for our Algebra 1 students several program changes were going to be necessary.  The first adjustment had to be in the amount of time students had to succeed in Algebra 1.  Taking advantage of the opportunity to offer credits in both Part 1 and Algebra 1, it was quickly decided that a two-year Algebra 1 program needed to be created.  The first group of students addressed was the weakest of the incoming ninth-graders. 

Doubling Them Up

Many of our failing students had good attendance records, excellent work habits and positive attitudes.  But success was continually eluding them.  It was decided that the traditional block schedule where they would have a math class only two or three times a week was not conducive to their chances of retaining the information.  To offset that problem the “Double-Block Algebra 1” class was developed.  In this class students would dedicate two class periods to Algebra 1.  They would meet every day for a full block and work on their fundamental skills during the first portion of the year, then study Algebra 1 and finally review and prepare for the end-of-course exam.  Selling the community was not easy.  Students were being asked to relinquish an elective in order to take a second period of math.  But the argument in favor was powerful.  A successful Double Block Algebra 1 student at the end of the year would have two-thirds of their required math credits completed and have the required verified math.  More persuasive was the success of the program.  Working with students who had little or no hope of succeeding in the traditional class, these initial double block classes had more than a 75% pass rate on the barrier exams.  Within two years the number of students in the double block had more than doubled and the pass rates were soon above 80%.  A word of warning—other schools in the district have used the double block with little or no success.  That is because they use them as a “dumping” ground for their least successful students.  Students with attendance or behavior problems do not belong in a double block.  All of those negatives are simply magnified.  Success with a Double Block Algebra 1 will only occur if the classes consist of properly placed students and a forceful and dedicated teacher. 

Actions Speak the Loudest

As previously mentioned, Part 1 and Algebra 1 were not effective.  With little success for Part 1 students in Algebra 1 and many years of misplaced students, my school abolished Algebra 1 part 1 as an option for our students.  Instead, we place all of our non-double block students in Algebra 1 for the first semester and allow the student’s actual classroom performance to determine whether they should be placed in Algebra 1 or Algebra 1 part 1.  At the end of the first semester those students who are struggling to succeed are reassigned to Algebra 1 part 1 classes; those who are performing well continue in Algebra 1.  The students in Part 1 are given an “adjusted grade” for the first semester reflecting the fact that a grade in Algebra 1 is more rigorous than one in Part 1.  This compensation does wonders for the student’s attitude.  They are getting a fresh start in a new room with a reasonably good grade to build upon.  The teacher nightmare of the failing student sitting in a classroom with no reason to work is diminished.  Equally important, these students have studied the first half of Algebra 1 in an actual Algebra 1 classroom spending time with highly successful students.  They not only learn 50% of Algebra 1, they learn it twice.  At the conclusion of the year they will receive a full year credit toward graduation and will then take the second year of Algebra the following school year.  While the ultimate number of students in part 1 at our school was similar to others in the system there was one critical difference.  We know our students are placed correctly.  In 2005 100% of the students in our Algebra 1 Part 2 classes, all of whom had come through this program passed the end-of-course exam.  Likewise, 100% of the students who continued in Algebra 1 the previous year passed as well.

Paying the Price

This process is not without cost to the math teachers and guidance counselors.  Over the years methods have been found to minimize the impact of these changes on other teachers and classes in the building. At midyear many math teachers are forced to add an extra preparation to their teaching day.  All Algebra 1 classes are changed at mid-year.  For all of these teachers they are not only adding preps but also starting their classes over in terms of classroom management issues, knowing the students, etc.  But due to the success of this program in providing students with verified credits, the math teachers are more than willing to accept these problems. 

As Mel Riddile has stated, finding avenues to success for students takes innovation, hard work and flexibility.  This program is one illustration of what has worked.  While the specifics may not be appropriate for all districts it does demonstrate the fundamental approaches that are needed to find the right plan for an individual school.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:57 AM | Permalink

At this time of the school year many secondary schools, at least those with a diverse mix of students from various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, are concerned with the number of course failures and disengaged students. How many course failures are too many? The answer will vary from school to school, but the reality is that failing a core academic course is one of the best predictors of a student dropping out of school.

Like most challenges facing schools today, there is no simple answer or one single solution. Because schools are complex social systems, the solutions to problems are usually multi-dimensional and involve both short- and long-term approaches. This is the first in a multi-part series designed to help begin the conversation among teachers and school leaders.  

Students don’t grow physically at the same rate. Nor do students grow socially or emotionally at the same rate. However, students must all learn at the same rate. How do I know? In many schools across the country all students are afforded the same amount of time to complete their courses.

And how is that working out? The answer is not well by today’s standards. I often hear from teachers and school leaders about high failure rates in core courses. They are puzzled and mystified about what to do. I recently received this concern from a colleague: “We have many students who are failing more than one course at the semester; some are failing as many as two and three.”

When I ask teachers and school leaders if students all learn at the same rate, they always say, “No! Students learn at different rates.” Then I ask, “If they learn at different rates, why do we give them all the same amount of time to complete their courses?” Then I get this far away look as though a thousand light bulbs just went off in their faces.

The bottom line is that students learn at different rates and they learn different subjects at different rates. Some students learn math quickly, yet struggle with history. Other students remember everything they learn in biology, but can’t remember how to do the same math problem that they solved perfectly two hours earlier.

Some students simply need more time to learn and some teachers need more time to teach some students. When students don’t have sufficient time, they begin to fall behind. Once they fall behind, it is extremely difficult and expensive, in terms of time, effort, and money, to catch them up. We spend far too much effort and valuable resources on remediation and credit recovery and place too little emphasis on preventing students from falling behind in the first place.

Schools that hold time constant will ensure that a significant number of students never reach mastery in any particular subject. Running all students down the same conveyor belt at the same rate guarantees that many will fail.

Failure was fine in the industrial age in which schools were tasked with sorting students—some go to college, others to trade schools, most to the factories or mines. In those days, most jobs did not require postsecondary education or training. An individual could succeed through hard work. Success in today’s post-information, knowledge-based economy requires hard work accompanied by knowledge, training, and high level reading, writing, and math skills.

The problem for schools is that varying learning time is complicated. It requires a lot of thought and planning. Allowing students to demonstrate mastery in differing lengths of time requires that we differentiate our approach with each student and that we develop an individual plan for each and every student. That takes a lot of work. My question is how much work does it require to remediate failing students? How successful are remediation efforts? What impact do repeating students have on teachers and students? Do repeaters improve?

In the schools that you and I attended, time was a constant and achievement became the variable. Some did (succeed), some didn’t, so what? In order to raise each and every student to mastery, time must become the variable and achievement the constant.

“Time is relevant. Outcomes are absolute.” – Anthony Robbins

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Recently there has been an explosion of activity on the educational front.  The development of the “Common Core State Standards Initiative” (CCSSI) is a significant step forward toward standardizing curriculum throughout the country.  It is very encouraging to note the wide-ranging acceptance these proposals are receiving.  (“Governors, state school superintendents propose common academic standards”).  The continuing saga of Central Falls High School in Rhode Island (Central Falls supt. wants all 74 high school teachers fired) plays out with a script equally suited for a soap opera and with cameo appearances by various administration officials and others.   But along with all of the drama, a significant amount of discussion concerning the dilemma of failing schools has been produced.  The Obama Administration “Race to the Top” initiative seems to be one of the main sources of much of this movement.   The most important issue, however, to attract attention is the persistent problem of low minority achievement.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has had a great deal to say on the topic.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Pay a Little; Pay a Lot

The data are consistent and of great concern.  One third of all new teachers leave the profession within the first three years; more than half are gone after five.  These numbers directly contribute to many of the continuing problems in public education.  Previously a common sense approach to first-year educators was presented which outlined a method in which recognizing and addressing the unique needs of an inexperienced teacher could help mitigate against this trend.  As Melinda Gates stated in her Washington Post op-ed, “Education reform, one classroom at a time”, the most crucial component to education success is the classroom teacher.    Here are a pair of additional proposals that involve a direct financial investment but will not only reduce new teacher losses, they will also create better future classroom instruction.

Proposal 1: An Offer You Cannot Refuse

No profession other than teaching expects its newest members to carry the same workload as the senior staff.  Here is a plan that addresses that situation at either the district or individual school level.  The mechanics are simple—new teachers have a schedule with one less class.  If the normal teaching load in a building is five, a new teacher will have four.  The benefits to such a plan can be enormous.  Because they will spend less time teaching, more time can be dedicated to preparation.  In addition the extra planning period could be dedicated to a number of beneficial endeavors.  Classes both within and beyond their own department could be observed and discussed on a regular basis.   More time could be devoted to meeting and planning with teachers who teach the same class.   They can observe parent/teacher conferences to better prepare for their own future meetings.  Finally, they can help other teachers within the department with such tasks as creating materials, grading papers and preparing classroom activities.  It is impossible to underestimate the valuable experiences that could be acquired by new teachers in such a non-threatening, lower-stress environment.

The obvious downside is the lost class periods from the master schedule.  But a careful analysis of the situation reveals that the expense may not be as great as it would initially appear.  In a building with one hundred teachers, if ten were in their first year, the loss would be ten class periods or two full time positions.  Adding two positions to a school of that size is an increase of 2%.  At the district level this would appear to be a small price to pay for the potential results.  Every new teacher that does not leave prematurely is one less that needs to be replaced and retrained.  The savings at the personnel office alone could offset the expense.   The school districts could encourage schools to take new teachers by only charging them for 0.8 of a position for each of these staff members.

But the biggest winner could be individual schools that adopt this plan on their own.  In many locations the competition for new hires, especially in certain critical fields, can be fierce. In order to secure the best available talent, administrators need to create compelling reasons to choose their location.  As a top-notch candidate sifts through multiple job offers there is no question that one, which includes the aforementioned teaching plan, would be significantly more attractive. While offering the extra planning period may create some staffing issues, what school would not want to have the inside track on every “blue chip” prospect?   Many schools carry staff positions that are not directly involved in the classroom.  The possible loss of some of these individuals may be a reasonable price for populating your building for years with a collection of the best and the brightest.

Proposal 2: Imitation is the Greatest Form of Flattery

One of the best and most rigorous of all professional preparations occurs within the medical field.  After finishing all of their education, new doctors complete their training by serving multiple years of residency.  The concept is not complex.  Inexperienced physicians learn how to do their jobs under the direction of an attending or supervising physician.  They learn in a carefully controlled, hands-on situation.

Why not have a similar plan for educators?  Of course it would involve some serious restructuring of the system but public education can hardly hide behind a “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” excuse.  In this radical new approach each school district would establish a “teaching” high school populated with the finest teachers in the system who are committed to the task of developing future educators.  All new teachers would spend a one-year internship at the school with a professional growth plan parallel to the one employed in medicine.  As the year progresses, the new teachers would be given broader opportunities to learn their craft all under the careful supervision of someone who has been trained to aid them in this quest.  To spend an extended amount of time in a building brimming with outstanding teachers and reduced pressure to perform is a perfect formula for success.

A Few Cons But So Many Pros

In addition to the high financial cost associated with this structure, an argument that might be raised against this plan is that it is merely a repetition of student teaching.  In an ideal educational world that might be true, but in far too many cases the student teaching experience that is currently in place fails to adequately prepare aspiring educators.  Because of the intense scrutiny and importance of standardized tests scores and grades, many excellent teachers are reluctant to become a cooperating teacher, which results in giving complete control of their classes to a student teacher for extended periods of time.  I have observed on numerous occasions that the first people to volunteer for this supervisory role are doing so for all of the wrong reasons.  But at a school designed specifically for mentoring new teachers such concerns would disappear.  And there are additional, more subtle perks.  Administrators from schools in the district could “scout” potential hires in much the same manner as a sports team evaluates young athletes.  These prospects could in turn make formal visits to schools to see their programs in action.  When the year is over, job offers can be made, positions filled, and confident, well-trained teachers move into the next level of their profession.  Meanwhile a new batch of recruits prepare for entry into the program the following year.

No one is so naïve as to believe this would be an easy change.  It would be very costly and would turn established educational philosophies on their collective heads.  Perhaps important groups like the Gates Foundation and others could offset some of the increased price tag.  An entirely new mindset would be necessary and hiring practices would be profoundly changed.  The transition would be slow and undoubtedly the devil would be in the details.  All of these negatives will make it easy to dismiss this plan.  One question, however, needs to be answered.  If education is one of the most important functions of our government, why are we continuing to support the failed status quo?  The current methods for training and retaining new teachers are a formula for mediocrity – or worse.   We can do better.   And we can follow a wonderful model already in place.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:07 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer

Many times in a variety of venues I have expressed my firm belief that end-of-course barrier exams are a step in the right direction for education.  In a previous post on this website, A Good Starting Point But Not Quite the Finish Line, I wrote that while such tests have structural flaws, their implementation has created positive outcomes that include establishing uniformity in many curricula, creating a standardized evaluation of student comprehension, aiding in the evaluation of teacher performance and as a component in awarding federal funds for systems that demonstrate significant and measurable improvement on these tools (U.S. devises scoring system for school reform contest).  Even with all of those constructive improvements in mind, I was stunned when I read a quote from the Virginia Superintendent of Public Instruction Patricia I. Wright in the February 10 Washington Post article, Md. tops U.S. in one measure of AP test performance.  Referring to the improvement in AP tests scores in her state Ms. Wright said:

“More of our young people are ready for the challenge of AP courses because of the Standards of Learning program (Virginia’s end-of-course exams) which has raised the instructional floor for all students."

How can osuch lofty accomplishments be ascribed to a fifty multiple-choice question test that is designed to ascertain the level of understanding obtained from 160 hours of classroom instruction in basic core subjects? It is obvious to me that Ms. Wright needs to curb her enthusiasm a bit.

You Say Mastery, I Say Minimal Competency

Apparently Ms. Wright is among the group of educators who believe that passing the Virginia SOL Exam demonstrates competency in a course and passing with a relatively high score indicates mastery.  While it would be wonderful if that interpretation were accurate, the facts reveal a very different story.  The Virginia Standards of Learning Exam is a collection of fifty, four-option, multiple-choice questions, in which the results are “normed” in much the same manner as the SAT.  This norming is based on the number of correct responses (no penalty for incorrectly guessing) and translates into SOL scores ranging from 200 to 600.  Four hundred or more earns one a “pass”; five hundred and above delineates advanced status.  To graduate, a student is required to pass the two English components and an additional four tests from the other three curricular areas including at least one from each discipline.   To be awarded an “Advanced Diploma” one must pass a minimum of nine.  But does this system of accountability really demonstrate what its advocates claim—a mastery of the subject matter being covered?

It Is All in the Math

Students, parents, teachers and administrators have continually misinterpreted SOL results. Understandably, when looking at a scoring range of 200-600 a result of 450 is viewed with great favor.  Consequently, when I refer to the SOL program as a measure of minimum competency rather than any demonstration of deep understanding, I have raised the blood pressure of many of my colleagues and supervisors.The strength of my argument rests squarely on the principles of mathematical probability.  The major weaknesses in the SOL testing system are the exclusive use of multiple-choice questions and the grading scale being employed.  A multiple-choice format without penalties for guessing has a strong propensity for misleading results.  This dilemma can be illustrated by a demonstration I give on this subject.  The process is simple—an individual is given a blank bubble sheet and then instructed to randomly fill in fifty answers with an A, B, C or D.  Then any one of the SOL tests is selected.  When the “blind” answer sheet is compared with the correct answers for the chosen test it will on average generate slightly more than twelve correct answers.  This result of twenty-five percent accuracy regardless of the questions or the answers is to be expected based on the laws of probability (note key word—laws).   Consequently, every SOL answer sheet will have about twelve correct answers even if the test-taker’s knowledge of the subject is zero.  Now the first step on the slippery slope of interpreting scores is about to be taken.  A dozen “correct” responses on a typical SOL exam translates into a score of about 325.  Remember that range of 200-600?  In reality the actual numbers should be 325-600.  Suddenly the use of 400 as a “passing” score becomes less credible.  Unfortunately, the process gets worse.  

On many SOL exams thirty correct responses equals a score above 400. Some require a few more, others a bit less.  So how much “mastery” of a subject is required to get to thirty correct answers?  If a student knows only half of the required curriculum, success is easy.  These students will accurately answer only 25 of the 50 questions.  Of the remaining 25 questions probability predicts at least six additional correct answers giving a raw score of 31.   On the 2006 Algebra 1 SOL that score would earn the student a result of 422.  Ironically, a score of 50% on virtually any classroom endeavor would be considered a failure.  (For additional scenarios see attached “How SOL Scores are Created”)  In reality even this example is understating the final score.  Placing the correct answer in the array of choices will skew the results slightly upward.  Of greater significance, if the test taker can eliminate one or more of the wrong answers the probability of a correct guess increases significantly.  Working backwards with the four answers that have been presented can often solve questions involving computation.  

After I gave this presentation at a PTSA meeting a parent approached me to say, “No wonder my son struggled so much in Honors Geometry.  I did not realize that his Algebra 1 SOL score of 460 was not what I thought it was.”  She was not alone in her misunderstanding of the numbers.  Virginia is not the only state with a “barrier-testing” program beset with these problems and comments like the one made by Ms. Wright add to the confusion.  This lack of transparency and misleading comments can lead to decisions resulting in significant future academic damage to students.

Doing It Right

What set of circumstances would allow Ms. Wright and others to use the word “mastery” when discussing these tests?  How can a state create a system of exams that would actually lead to more college-level thinking?  Here are some suggestions:

- Devote the resources necessary to upgrade the quality of the testing process.

- Be transparent and realistic.  Include input from teachers, administrators, and college admission officials.  Educate the community concerning the intent of the program. 

- Be wary of No Child Left Behind—any program that mandates a 100% pass rate in 2014 should not be a factor.

- Create tests that parallel AP and IB exams.  Replace multiple-choice questions with short-answer inquiries.   Have a portion dedicated to essay or multi-step problem solving.  Eliminate any advantage for guessing. 

- Do not norm the results.  Establish a criterion-referenced test with realistic scores and produce students who can achieve them.  For starters establish a score of 95% for mastery, 80% is competent, 66% will be passing and anything less is failure.  In the real world being wrong one third of the time is not a formula for success. If 95% of the test takers pass under these criteria everyone can be happy.  If 65% fail, do not lower the standards.  Instead, find ways to improve the knowledge base of your students. 

While it is wonderful that AP and IB test scores are improving in Maryland and Virginia, the root cause of this improvement cannot be attributed to Standards of Learning Program.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer

We have spent a great deal of time over the past week on this site discussing our concerns about the mass firings that took place in Central Falls, Rhode Island last week.   I could repeat all of the reasons why I believe this approach is not only wrong, it sets a dangerous precedent.  But those thoughts have been sufficiently stated in a variety of ways.  Instead, I thought it could be enlightening to solicit a response from someone who was a current classroom teacher.  What follows are a few hundred words of a highly successful educator about this subject.

William (Bill) Horkan has taught mathematics at a high school with the highest free and reduced lunch population in his county.  His success has been the subject of a Washington Post article, “To Impressive Success, Fairfax Teacher Nurtures Enrollment, Proficiency in IB Math Classes” and he is an excellent person to solicit input on this subject.  Here are some of his preliminary thoughts about a better plan for the Central Falls school.

“If you took three or four of high quality math teachers and placed them in the Central Falls math department, the program could be turned around in about three years.  I have seen it done in our school and I can see it being done there as well.  Put that core together with the math teachers who wanted to stay (I assume based on the total staff of 74 the math department has about 10 teachers).  Then I would do the following:

- Ask the current teachers for ideas.  It is always a bad idea to go into a situation by telling people what to do.  Also, whether the current teachers are good, bad or average, they still know the students better than anyone else.

- Tell the teachers that any reasonable ideas can be tried.  However, they have to show that they work.

- Realize that not all teachers are the same.  What works for one might not work for another. Have everyone try something, not everyone try everything.

- Realize that teachers are not interchangeable.  Some are good at teaching lower levels, some are good at teaching 'average' students and some are good at teaching higher levels.  Also, some teachers are better at teaching younger students, some are better teaching older students.

- Do not pass a student in a class until that student is ready for the next one.

- Find out what is best for each student.  "One size fits all" doesn't work for students or teachers.

- Do what is best for each student.  If this means going against the rules or making new ones, so be it.

These thoughts reflect the instant response of a professional educator.  Given more time and reflection they would be more precise.  And yet somehow they seem so much more constructive then to simply “fire them all.”

According to a just released national survey, teachers want supportive leadership more than anything else. In fact, by a wide margin, teachers indicated that supportive leadership was more important than higher salaries and pay for performance.

The survey of 40,000 teachers was sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in collaboration with Scholastic, Inc. "We wanted to put teachers' voices front and center in the debate around education reform," said Vicki Phillips, the Gates Foundation's education director. "Teachers are on the front line of this work every day ... it doesn't make sense not to be talking to teachers."

What do teachers want?

- Supportive leadership (68%) more than higher salaries (45%)

- Digital media more than textbooks

- Evaluations based on how much students learn more than on principal evaluations. Only 22% believe that principal evaluations accurately represent their work.

- Salaries more than performance pay.

- The current school year over a longer school day and year. Only 36% favor extending the school year.

Additional findings of the survey include:

- 97% believe that setting high expectations is essential in raising student achievement

- 8% indicated that performance pay was essential.

- 71% believe that monetary rewards will have little or no impact on student achievement

- Also high on the list of essentials were relevant professional development, clean and safe working conditions, time to collaborate, and access to high-quality curriculum.

Conclusions

School leadership is essential to establishing a school climate in which teachers can teach and students can learn. As far as teachers are concerned, the principal is literally the “cork in the bottle.” The principal either makes things happen or prevents them from happening.

If schools want great teachers, they are going to have to have great leaders to support them.

All the money spent on improving teacher training will go for naught if we don’t fund principal development.

It is interesting to note that none of the things that teachers want most--respect, support, clean, safe, and orderly schools—cost anything. The most important things in school really are free. Money cannot buy a culture. Nor, can money buy relationships, trust, or support. School culture is not for sale!

Teachers know what they want, and when they don’t get it, they vote with their feet. They leave the school or they leave the profession. Teachers will simply not work in a school that is not teacher-friendly, and why should they?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:25 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer

Among the myriad of problems facing public education, one of the most disruptive is the stunning exodus of new teachers within the first few years of employment.  Many studies indicate that at least a third of all educators give up the profession within the first three years and more than half within five.  These losses represent a continuing drain on the competency level of a school’s staff and a remedy needs to be found to stop these losses.  There are a number of ways to alleviate this ongoing dilemma representing varying degrees of both cost and success. 

The first proposal does not cost any money but could result in a few bruised feelings among the more senior staff members in a building as well as some consternation among some of the more “traditional” administrators. It requires a strong commitment at all levels to ensure that new teachers are given the best possible opportunity to grow into seasoned veterans.  Some old-fashioned thinking may have to be readjusted and a small amount of buy-in will be required among the staff.  But the cost is small when compared to the potential upside for the department and school.

Closing the Deal

In order to develop great veteran teachers one must begin with high-potential new ones.   In June 2006 I had three math vacancies to fill for the upcoming school year.  As was my custom when hiring new teachers, I carefully studied the resumes of the county’s forty early math hires. I found seven that interested me and set up interviews.

When meeting with prospective math teachers I always tell them that this interview is a two-way process; they should be asking as many questions of us as we are of them.  We all must decide whether this particular school and candidate have the potential of being a productive combination.  This discussion does not revolve around good and bad, adequate or inadequate.  The simple fact that needs to be addressed is that schools have a personality just like individuals and some candidates are better suited to one rather than another.   I also tell them that they have more control of the process than they realize.  For highly qualified individuals multiple offers will be forthcoming and they will have choices.   In addition to this honest transparency about their options, I discuss their future at my school.  We talk about how we put together a career path for all of our new teachers. We will look at their first five years and plan what type of teaching schedule will best serve their long-term goals.

And finally I advise them to ask every potential employer three questions (my answers are in parenthesis):

 - How many class preps will I have?  (at most two)

 - Will I have my own classroom? (yes)

 - Will the administrative team be supportive?  (You are working in one of the most creative, collaborative and supportive environments possible.  We will do everything possible to produce a five-year plan to ensure that your career will follow the exact course you envision.)

After the top three “blue-chippers” were ascertained, job offers went out and fingers were crossed.  In a county with twenty-six high schools the competition for math teachers is fierce.  It is not hyperbole to say that a talented prospect can be offered positions at ten or more schools.  But one by one my three top picks said yes.  They all acknowledged they had many offers from which to choose, but decided to come with us.  I asked each one why she had made her decision.   Though none of them had ever met, they all had similar responses.  They liked the idea that we were open and honest about the process and most of all they liked the concept of a “plan” for their career.

There is a fascinating back-story here.  Another much more upscale school in the county offered jobs to the same three women.  When the assistant principal in charge of hiring math teachers discovered that his school had been rejected by all three in favor of our far less affluent location he responded angrily.  In a phone call to the school he demanded to know “What is it you are giving away over there?”  If I had spoken to him I would have told him our “tricky” lure was the combination of honesty and the promise of a future.           

Making Good on a Promise

History bears out that what occurred in these interviews was not a high-pressure sales pitch but rather a system we had been using for years.  Long ago I had concluded that the job of a new teacher was difficult enough without the added burden of moving from room to room.  Consequently, none of these teachers were placed in such a position.   (Ironically, I used one of their classrooms as part of my itinerant day)  One of the teachers was given a schedule of one regular and two double block Algebra 2 classes.  This assignment offered several advantages—while teaching five classes, she basically had only one preparation and three sets of students.  The slower paced double block (they met every day instead of every other day) meant she had more time to teach a concept and if there were problems they could be readdressed the next day in a more relaxed manner. Her second year schedule was exactly the same thus allowing her to perfect and refine her Algebra 2 lesson plans.  It was time to begin slowly expanding her career in her next teaching assignment.  That year her regular Algebra 2 was replaced with an Advanced Placement Pre-calculus.  This year she has two AP sections.  The second teacher had a parallel course.  She taught one regular and two double-block geometry for two of her first three years and in the third replaced the regular with a Trig / Math Analysis.  She is now working with the Honors Geometry program as well.  The third member of the group had taught Algebra 1 in summer school prior to coming to our school.  Consequently, she was assigned one Algebra 2 and four Algebra 1 classes.  The next year she had an identical schedule and the third and fourth she taught Algebra 1 and two sections of AP Calculus.  Now well into their fourth years, these talented educators give no thought to quitting.  To the contrary they now proudly tell me about their classroom success and of their high level of influence in the seventeen-member department.  One related to me in a letter “Just like you told us when you retired; the three of us are taking over!”  She was being facetious but not inaccurate.

Finding the Answer in Your Own Backyard

To cultivate good new teachers many of the “perks” normally reserved for more senior teachers must be reconsidered.  When assigning class schedules, lack of experience should be a consideration not a license to take advantage.  All too often new hires are given the “leftovers” of the master schedule, a frighteningly eclectic combination of the classes that no one else wanted.  If classrooms are in short demand the least experienced person is soon wheeling all of their newly created worksheets, supplies and notes on a cart during the already frantic exchange of classes.   Such treatment is precisely why the statistics on new teachers are so depressing. 

Perhaps the best model for how to develop and retain teachers can be found in a very surprising location—the high school classroom.  When a new student enters a class several weeks into the year what is the typical treatment accorded to them?  Well, let’s see, they are given additional individualized attention at first to make sure they can catch up with the rest of the students.  Extra time is allowed for them to understand the curriculum. They are not expected to immediately work at the same level as their more experienced classmates.   Often another student is asked to aid or mentor them through the initial process.  And in many cases previous material is streamlined and simplified to ensure that knowledge acquisition is accelerated as quickly as possible.

Could such a novel approach work with another group of individuals in the same building?

Next:  Two more plans, one a little bit pricey, the other downright expensive

but both really good.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Like many other parts of the country, the Northeast has experienced a particularly harsh winter, which, in many districts has resulted in repeated delays as well as a number of lost school days. Many districts have plans that call for adding missed school days to the end of the school year.

Principals and teachers know all too well that delayed openings and other disruptions to the normal school day make it difficult to keep everyone focused on academics. Today, for example, high winds forced the Fairfax County (Virginia) Public Schools to remove students and teachers from trailers and other temporary classrooms. That means that cafeterias, libraries and auditoriums will be filled with students. It also means that instruction is disrupted in the second or third largest district in the state. It turns out that the number of students receiving instruction in temporary structures in Fairfax County is equal in size to or greater than all but a few districts in the entire state.

While the school year is technically the same number of school days, more of those days now fall after high-stakes state assessments. What impact will that have on academic performance? This year students are losing days and weeks of preparation, not only for state assessments, but also for Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate exams, which are administered in the first week of May.

Attendance is one key factor in raising student achievement. In “Every Minute Counts,” The Teacher Leader provided a poignant illustration of lost time resulting in lower test scores.

“Several years ago I was attending a district-wide department chair meeting and the number one topic was the drop in standardized math scores throughout the district.  For the first time in years instead of rising, the scores were uniformly lower at nearly every school.  Our assignment was to find the cause.  When I returned to school I asked my best Algebra 1 teacher for her explanation.  Without hesitation she responded with one word—“snow”.  The previous year we had unusually bad weather and we missed two weeks of school.   While she had time to cover the material for the test, her normal two-week review period was lost.   With the loss of just ten school days an entire system saw a drop in student scores.”

Under plans currently being implemented, many teachers and principals will be fired because of dropping academic performance due to lost “snow days.” While this is certainly not the intent of the “reform,” the reality is that holding teachers and principals accountable for student achievement is not as simple as some would want us to believe.

For example, in some states, there is absolutely no accountability for students and total accountability for teachers and principals. For students, the state assessments are nothing more than an inconvenience. They are not barriers to graduation. The opposite is true for the educators, their jobs and careers depend on the results. That means that the schools are dependent on the good will of the students. If a student wants to draw pictures on the answer sheet, there is no consequence and the professionals are punished.

Likewise, many states and districts are lax in enforcing attendance laws. The research on dropouts conducted by Bob Balfanz and Nettie Letgers at Johns Hopkins points to student attendance as a prime early indicator of future dropout behavior. They point out that students with a 10% or greater absence rate are more likely to experience academic problems and are much more likely to drop out. Some schools have an overall attendance rate below 90%. That means that the average student would miss 18 days of school per school year. Add to that the two lost weeks of school due to weather, and you have six or more weeks of lost instructional time.

Principals and teachers are frustrated at the dual standard. Hold schools accountable, but do nothing to help them by enforcing existing attendance laws by holding students accountable for test results.

Being a teacher or principal in the Northeast this year could be a recipe for disaster. Get the pink slips ready!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

As earlier reported, Central Falls, Rhode Island, Superintendent, Frances Gallo, had pinks slips placed in the mailboxes of all 74 of the high school’s teachers. According to the news report, Central Fall High School is one of the poorest performing schools in the state, with a less than 50 percent graduation rate. “Supt. Gallo said the teachers would not agree on a plan to fix the struggling school that included a longer school day and tutoring before and after school.” The report indicates that the teachers wanted to be compensated for working extra duties.

The Rest of the Story

In an announcement released today, Rhode Island Education Commissioner, Deborah A. Gist, has given Central Falls Superintendent, Frances Gallo, 120 days to develop a plan to improve Central Falls High School. According to the press release, last week, Gallo submitted a proposal to use the “turnaround” model as the basis for reform of the high school. The “turnaround” model requires replacement of the principal and at least 50 percent of the staff, “a new governance structure, better use of data, expanded learning time, and social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports for students.”

The press release indicated “Following procedures from the U.S. Department of Education, last month the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (RIDE) identified Central Falls High School and five schools in Providence as the persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state. Commissioner Gist ordered Providence and Central Falls to convene an advisory group of community stakeholders and to select for each school one of the four federal models for school reform: turnaround, school closure, restart, or transformation.”

My thoughts:

- Is this the first of many school “terminations” that we will be reading about in the coming months?

- On the surface, it appears much easier to simply use the “termination” or is it the “turnaround” model.

- It is much easier to “terminate” a school that to actually work with the staff to “turnaround” the school. To “turnaround” a school you actually have to know what you are doing. To “terminate” a school, all you need to know how to do is distribute pink slips, and any bureaucrat can do that.

- Instead of “terminating” the school, why not just skip to the good part? Why not give the school the resources that they actually need in order to raise student achievement.

- The only thing that this approach to school improvement does is to single out the poorest schools.

- Not only did 74 teachers get pink slipped, but so did the principal.

- I wonder, where is Central Falls going to find 74 teachers?

- Given the way the terminations were delivered, what teacher or prospective principal would apply to work in that district? Would you advise your son or daughter to apply for a teaching job in that district?

Our school was called by National Geographic Magazine “the most diverse school in America.” We had high poverty and high student mobility. Two-thirds of our students were second language learners (ELL). We didn’t have the highest test scores, but when we used a regression analysis comparing achievement on state exit exams to poverty in our twenty-six high school district, our school was the only outlier. We didn’t have the highest scores, but we were doing the best job with the students we had. I always said that I could take our entire staff and improve even the wealthiest school in the district, but the teachers from the wealthiest school wouldn’t last a day in our school.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer

There is an old saying in baseball when the manager of an underachieving team is fired—“It wasn’t necessarily his fault, but we couldn’t fire the whole team”.  Apparently that is not the case in Central Falls, Rhode Island.  As related in a recent news article, http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/central-falls-supt.-wants-all-74-high-school-teachers-fired, the Superintendent of Central Falls Frances Gallo has decided to fire every teacher in the school as a result of poor graduation rates and some contentious labor negotiations. 

When I first read about this case I must admit I was temporarily at a loss for words.  My first thoughts were laced with disbelief.   If someone with a sore toe went to a surgeon with a philosophy similar to Gallo, they could lose their entire leg.  Also, as a former math teacher I have to share the following mathematical fact—the likelihood that 74 out of 74 teachers are bad is more than remote.  It is numerically astounding.

On a More Realistic Note

After reading Mel Riddile’s response to the mass firings, http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference/2010/02/fire_them_all.html, I think I have regained my verbal balance.  I concur with him on the need to treat all people with respect and dignity if you want to attain any level of success.  Likewise, every staff contains people of great talent.  But let me share a few thoughts from the teacher perspective.

One critical point needs to be made from the outset.  The path taken by Ms. Gallo, whether she realizes it or not, was the easy way out of a bad situation but not the solution to a real and important problem. While the adults are sorting out who to fire, who to picket and who to blame, more than half of the adolescents in the building will still not graduate from high school. The belief that the next seventy-four teachers will automatically be significantly better than the current staff is naïve at best.  What is far more likely is that the replacement troops will have no more success than their predecessors.  And while Ms. Gallo’s ego may be assuaged the ultimate losers, again, will be the students.

The tough choice would have been to take the time and energy necessary to discover the root causes of the problems at the school.  Were the difficulties grounded in demographics, philosophy, hiring practices, staff development plans, counseling, etc.?  At what points in the system was leadership breaking down?  The answers to such questions would require research and hard work but they would ultimately lead to a path toward improvement.

In my forty years as a math teacher including twenty-six as department chair, I worked with a significant number of colleagues who struggled in the classroom.  But the vast majority of these individuals wanted to be good teachers.  Their problem was that they did not possess all of the tools to ensure success.  The job of school leaders at all levels is to provide those instruments.  System leaders must give principals the independence to recognize the unique qualities of their individual schools and then craft a working plan to best reach the needs of their community.  School leaders must determine which staff members have the vision, teaching skills and management qualities to assist others to improve.  Teacher leaders must examine the strengths and weaknesses of the department members and find ways to maximize each teacher’s best talents while minimizing their deficits.  The task of educating is no different from any other endeavor.

No one is born with the specific skill set to instantly become successful.  Good role models, cohesive improvement plans, hard work and dedication will in the vast majority of cases result in better teaching.

The damage caused by the series of events in Central Falls will not be easily repaired.  As Riddle said one of the key ingredients in a successful school is mutual respect and commitment.  How can a school expect to attract teachers with those attributes after a mass firing such as the one in Rhode Island? How could anyone possibly convince them that their best choice would be   to work at a school that fired everyone in the building?   The word “fire” is dangerous in both a crowded movie theater and in education.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:36 PM | Permalink

Central Falls, Rhode Island, Superintendent, Frances Gallo, had pinks slips placed in the mailboxes of all 74 of the high school’s teachers. According to the report, Central Fall High School is one of the poorest performing schools in the state, with a less than 50 percent graduation rate. “Supt. Gallo said the teachers would not agree on a plan to fix the struggling school that included a longer school day and tutoring before and after school.” The report indicates that the teachers wanted to be compensated for working extra duties.

Reactions:

Shine Those Diamonds - During a visit to our school several years ago, I was asked by a high-ranking U.S. Department of Education official, “Did you have to purge the staff?” I responded with a question, “Have you ever read Acres of Diamonds?” A big smile suddenly appeared on his face. It turns out that he had. Our school improvement efforts were led by a core group of dedicated, highly skilled teacher leaders all of whom had worked 15 or more years in the school. My job as principal was to find the diamonds and let them shine. In other words, I had to set teachers and their students up for success.

Control or Cooperation – In order to raise the achievement of each and every student, we need everyone working together taking ownership of the problems as well as the solutions. After this mass termination, I wonder how anyone will be able to gain the trust of the staff. As I indicated in a previous post, the essential question that every school leader and classroom leader must ask is “Do I want control or cooperation?” The answer to that question creates an intention that drives all future behavior. A school leader or classroom leader who seeks cooperation will think and behave much differently than one who seeks control. I contend that, if one has cooperation, control is unnecessary. However, it is the illusion of control or the fear of losing control that drives many leaders to engage in the kind of close-minded, top-down styles of interacting that erode relationships, stifle dialogue, and connote a lack of respect. Are you willing to give up a little control in order to get more cooperation? Are you willing to spend more time making decisions in order to make better decisions? Are you okay with not knowing all the answers? Are you willing to ask more questions?

The right thing, the right way, for the right reason – Schools become high-performing because they treat other peoples’ children the way that they would want their own children treated. In that same vein, we must treat our teachers the same way that we would want our wives or husbands treated if they were teaching at our school. My wife taught for 30 years and I can tell you that her classroom perspective kept me grounded. I certainly would not want her to receive a pink slip in her mailbox.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:48 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer

Part 1: Defining the Problem

In his post “Gates: It’s the Teachers”, Mel Riddile firmly aligns himself with the views expressed by Melinda Gates in her recent Washington Post op-ed “Just Get the Best Teachers”.  Gates, Riddile and many other leaders of the educational community find that the equation for classroom success is quite simple:

The quality of the teacher = the level of student performance

Unfortunately, the solution of this problem is both difficult and complex.  Riddile formulates the overall answer—school leaders must do everything possible to create not only effective teachers but also individuals who are committed to their students and their profession.  Today I will offer the first of a three-part posting to address one critical portion of the teaching community where I believe such changes must be implemented. 

The task of making the American public school system more effective is much like the story of the little boy trying to plug all of the holes in the dike.  There is no simple fix or singular course correction available.  But there is a logical place to start.  Studies clearly indicate that good teaching can overcome a multitude of educational problems.  Likewise, poor instruction can undermine even the best of educational environments.  Consequently, the initial focus for improvement should be on the area that would be the most beneficial and critical—the classroom teacher.

The challenge is easily defined.  A plan must be created that would place excellent instructors in every classroom.  But while this may be a relatively easy goal to articulate it is virtually impossible to accomplish until one crucial trend is reversed.  Some data show that one-third of all new teachers leave the profession within their first three years and half by the fifth year.  For a comprehensive discussion of teacher retention refer to ‘Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis” by Richard Ingersoll (Richard Ingersoll, Fall 2001 issue of the American Educational Research Journal).  In a profession where experience is a critical component for success this constant riptide of disappearing talent is crippling.  When confronted with this statistic too many educational leaders simply propose raising teacher salaries.  Of course raising salaries is certainly not a bad thing but in this case it is not the fix.  Rather than money, the underlying reason for the failure of new teachers to grow into seasoned career professionals is the manner in which they are nurtured - or more accurately, not nurtured - in the majority of school systems.

I began my teaching career in 1968.  While many things have changed over the past four plus decades one constant has remained.  Every educational group on the planet refers to teaching as a “profession” correctly placing it in the same category as lawyers, doctors, and certified public accountants.  The comparison is apt.  College degrees are required and advanced degrees are encouraged in all of these vocations.  In order to be employed a license is needs to be obtained. 

The great divide between these occupations occurs in the initial years of a career.  No law, doctor or accounting office would give a first-year employee a job description equivalent to that of a senior partner.  They would certainly never place their most at-risk clients in the hands of their least experienced workers.  And yet, year in and year out, that precise scenario is played out in schools all over the country.

Democracy lives large when assigning tasks in education. Every teacher in a building, whether on their first day or twentieth year is assigned the same number of classes with a similar number of preparations and equally large class sizes. In truth a new teacher’s treatment is often less than equal in many circumstances. In a misguided attempt to reward seniority, schools give new teachers entry-level classes that many times are among the most difficult in a building while reserving the higher levels for long-term staff members.  

Imagine if recent law school graduates were told that on the first day at the office their initial case will be a high profile criminal case before the U.S. District Court—in one week.  But far too many first-year teachers face a comparable situation.  If classrooms are in short supply—not an uncommon situation at most schools–it is almost always the new guy who gets to roam the halls from class to class.  One person in this exact situation referred to his life as “Have wheels, will travel”. 

Inexperience in the classroom is a heavy burden; inexperience in multiple locations is down right oppressive.  Thus, is it any wonder why so many new teachers decide all too quickly that teaching is not for them?  On my first day as a high school math teacher (age 21 with the face of a twelve-year-old) I discovered that the majority of my Algebra 1 students, typically a ninth-grade course, were eleventh and twelfth graders.  The explanation was simple—the school did not like to have students who had previously failed a course to have the same teacher for the encore performance. Since I was the new kid (literally) on the block, it was very convenient for the counselors to place every student who had failed Algebra 1 onto my rosters.  No danger of repetition in that plan.   My classroom was the only academic classroom located across from the industrial arts wing so I was occasionally interrupted by the sound of a lathe, lawnmower engine or jackhammer.  Looking back on my initial teaching assignment, it was amazing I lasted three days let alone three years.

Over the years problems have diminished somewhat.  Colleges are doing a better job of preparing graduates to succeed. Some locales give new teachers an extra day or two of meetings prior to the beginning of the year.   Often young teachers are assigned to an experienced mentor who is expected to answer questions and give advice.  Unfortunately, little or no time is dedicated to this interaction.  The selection process of mentors in many cases is at best weak and at its worst terrifying. It is critical to remember that even the most conscientious individuals in this position still have to deal with a full time teaching job of their own as the school year is about to begin.  Obviously, this issue is far from ideal.

The continuous loss of young talent in education cannot be sustained.  Band-aid solutions will not cure the root cause of the exodus.  Answers are available but can only be found a good deal outside of the traditional box.  Many of the ways we have done school business will have to undergo serious changes.  And be assured the best of these alterations will cost money in the short term.  But the gains to our overall educational system will be well worth the cost and effort. 

(Next:  Three solutions, one is free; one will be costly; the third is expensive.

But all will help retain our youngest and brightest)

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:00 PM | Permalink

In a previous post, “Just Hire the Best Teachers,” I described a situation in which, after delivering a keynote speech on school turnaround, I was told by a noted expert, “all you have to do to improve schools is hire the best teachers.” Apparently, Melinda Gates agrees. In a recent Washington Post op-ed pieces, Ms. Gates states, “The key to helping students learn is making sure that every child has an effective teacher every single year. Teachers are at the center of our strategy at the Gates Foundation,” which is currently “working with more than 3,000 teachers in seven school districts to develop measures of teacher effectiveness.”

Ms. Gates correctly points out that the schools making the biggest gains in student achievement were those doing “revolutionary work inside the classroom.” The challenge is to find out what the revolutionary work actually entails.

Her optimism is supported by the successes of schools around the country that are beating the odds including the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP). Ms. Gates observed that the key to the success of the KIPP schools was its principal and the dedicated and talented teachers on the staff. She goes on to point out that the classroom teacher is the most important variable in student achievement.

Ms. Gates then asks an important question. “Why hasn’t education policy focused more on raising teacher effectiveness? Here are my thoughts:

First and foremost, I am reminded that “for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” (H.L. Mencken) We keep saying “No silver bullet will cure the ills affecting the nation’s education system” (Arne Duncan) yet we insist on coming up with one solution after another. In fact, Ms. Gates, herself, expands the range of solutions when she attributes the success of KIPP to the principal and the teachers.

When my friend, the expert, told me that all we had to do was hire great teachers, I turned to him 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. New teachers don’t walk into schools with all the skills and knowledge that they will ever need in their entire career. All new teachers must rely on mentors and advisors, most of whom are provided by the principal. Teachers must be trained in effective teacher preparation programs, and they must be nurtured and grown throughout their careers.

Teachers need instructional leadership. They need a direction and focus. If it is great teachers who make great schools, then it is those who hire, nurture and develop teachers who are equally as important to the equation.

Teachers need a support system to succeed. Learning cannot take place in a chaotic, high-threat environment. Teachers need warm and inviting, safe and orderly school environments.

Teachers need adequate, focused, and uninterrupted instructional time in order to teach each and every student. In addition to the fact that KIPP students must apply for admission, students in KIPP schools spend 68% more time on core subjects than do students in other schools in their districts.

A colleague recently confided to me that the starting teacher salary in her state was $18,000. Low starting salaries make it difficult to attract the best and brightest into teaching. While teachers don’t enter the profession for financial gain, they must make a living wage. More knowledge about teaching will not change low salaries.

Do we need more research? I am reading a book that is a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses of research into student achievement. That is a lot of research. The reality is that we need to apply the research that we already have. The problem with improving schools over the past fifty years is the fidelity of implementation. We keep searching for the silver bullet, when, in fact, we already have a good idea about what we need to do, but we don’t implement well. We are hopelessly searching for educational riches when we are literally sitting on top of acres of diamonds. I predict that no principal or teacher will be surprised by what the Measures of Effective Teaching project reveals. What we need is to stop searching for greener pastures and to focus on actually putting research into practice.

Finally, and most importantly, we all need to strongly believe that all students can be held to high standards and that they can achieve to high levels. Unfortunately, two of three teachers do not hold that belief. All the research and strategies on effective teaching will not overcome a fixed mindset. The achievement gap, may, in reality, be an expectation gap.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer

In the Washington Post article of December 21, 2009 “Fewer high school students taking computer science classes” the decline of Computer Science in public education was documented.  While it is not unusual for courses to disappear from the typical school schedule, the loss of this particular class should be of great concern.  It is important both as an essential twenty-first century curriculum for our public high schools and as a warning sign of a systemic problem.

The View from the Inside

Who better to explain the importance of Computer Science than someone who has been in the course within the past few years?  Here are some excerpts of a letter from just such an individual.

“Today, I was informed that my former high school is no longer offering Computer Science courses to students because of low enrollment… I graduated four short years ago.  I earned the full IB Diploma with four higher-level IB classes.

I had two majors in my Undergraduate degree: Biology and Computer Science. After graduating college in 2009, I was virtually unaffected by the recession and had employers fighting to hire me, which is quite unusual for graduates holding only a Bachelors degree with an average GPA.

Computer Science is the future.  The IT industry is a great place for young people to get a good solid start at life.  Computer science graduates earn 13 percent more than the average college graduate, according to U.S. Department of Labor.  Computer jobs are ranked among the highest in job satisfaction.  A degree in Computing can make it much easier to find a job for a recent graduate.  The field is projected to increase by 24 percent in the next 10 years (average growth of employment in a field is 7-13 percent).  It’s a field at the forefront of technology, a career that is always evolving leaving new opportunities in its wake.  The diversity of jobs computer knowledge prepares a person for is staggering.  Even if CS majors decide to take a job in a different field, their computer backgrounds can be extremely useful in a working environment.

Beyond being a doorway to a good career, the subject itself is invaluable to young minds.  It’s a practical application of problem solving skills, which is why Computer Science degrees run alongside Mathematics degrees at many institutions.  But unlike the derivatives of Calculus, which might seem a waste of time to a seventeen year old, Computer Science is logic at work.  It’s a real-world application of mind-bending exercises.

Even if there are only 10 kids who sign up for the subject each year, make it available to them.  Let them try it out; let them expand their minds that much more.  I’ll be the first to admit I didn’t want to take the class.  My mother told me to take it because it was available, and after the first class I was hooked.  Look where it led me.  Frankly, I don’t think the course should just be offered, but it should be a requirement of a high school diploma; just as a sound knowledge of computers is required in any job…. Don’t turn these students away.  Don’t make it more difficult for them to find their direction.  At the end of the day, educating the next generation and preparing them for the world we made is of the utmost importance.  Let’s not lose sight of that.  The world on the horizon is one run by computers, with the Computer Science majors at the helm.  Help your students, help our kids, and find success.”

Not a Singular Opinion

Allow me one more anecdote.  For more than a decade my son has been a highly successful computer engineer at an international computer programming company.  When I asked him whether CS was critical to a high school his response was immediate:  “If it was not for CS in high school I would not be where I am today.  My degree in college was in chemistry but the background I had from my high school and college courses in computer science was what got me my job.”  He went on to tell me that in the rare cases where his company hires someone without a strong CS background, a college professor from a nearby university is brought in to give the new employee a private “CS tutoring session”.  These young people are far from alone in their beliefs.

So What Is the Problem?

I asked a former CS teacher why these classes were disappearing.  Her answer was two- fold.  “CS has never been sold for what it really is—a solid course for future vocations.  And now in the current environment of budget cuts, when a class does not have a certain number of students, it is cut from the master schedule. My last cancelled CS had 18 students registered.”  While many AP and IB courses will remain on the schedule with low enrollments the case for giving computer science similar status has never been adequately articulated.  Nor has it been sufficiently promoted to the students. The lack of effective salesmanship is obvious.   Tragically, effective advocacy for computer science need not be time consuming or expensive.  For example, the MIT School of Engineering periodically sends out a team of young women to speak to selected groups of students concerning a possible career in engineering (http://mitpsc.mit.edu/outreach/landing.php?id=102). I watched one of these presentations and was stunned by the enthusiasm it evoked from its audience.  After dismissing the notion that engineering was only about concrete and steel, the power point flashed a picture of a bright red, stiletto-heeled shoe.  The woman at the microphone then asked, “Who do you think designed this?  Her answer, an engineer?”  The positive and enthusiastic response from the all-female audience was palpable.   Similar approaches need to be taken to ensure that the study of computer science is given the importance it deserves.

The Canary in the Coal Mine

I have never taught or studied computer science.  Am I showing my age?  My concern for its decline is that it is symptomatic of a larger problem within our educational system.  Here is how it works. 

- The Bait.  One of the rites of spring has become the public bargaining session between the various school systems and the community.  Each year the schools announce that due to budget issues some popular programs that are near and dear to the hearts of the people will have to be cut.  The usual suspects in this annual dance are athletics, the arts, and field trips.  After the predictable pushback by some of the most vocal and powerful parent groups in the high school, some funds are restored, threatened actions are rescinded and the process moves on. 

- The Switch.  But there is a second act that is not so public.  Monies are still in short supply and some items still need to be sacrificed.  Consequently, when a class like Computer Science falls a little short in enrollment it disappears for a year.  After this absence is repeated a few times it becomes a vague memory and eventually it becomes extinct.  My concern is that this same scenario holds true for too many other important but smaller classes as well.   One is sliced here, another removed there and soon the quality of the educational system has died from a thousand small curriculum cuts.

A Better Way to Go

If real budget cuts are necessitated by dwindling funds then perhaps the annual threats should become the reality.  The simple truth is that certain courses are more important in meeting the goal of a forward-thinking educational system that truly wants to produce productive citizens that are prepared for the future in a global, technology-based society.   Unlike using technology, knowledge of how technology works will enable our young people to innovate and take part in creating new ways of computing.   This knowledge is not going to be picked up on the proverbial streets.  We need to take a serious step back and redefine what we want and need from public education and then reprioritize our spending.

We need to heed the sage words expressed earlier in this piece by two young people.  Computer Science must be a consistent, standard course offering in all schools.  Enrollment should be encouraged at every level of the system—teachers, counselors, administrators and system-wide.  This approach should then become a model for other courses of similar worth.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer

It is no revelation that some students need more time than others to master certain subjects.  The task of a school is to find ways to give students the opportunity for that extra attention.   Also needed is a realistic understanding that adolescents do not automatically seek out additional study time even when struggling.  The problem, then, for administrators is two-pronged—creating more access while providing compelling incentives.  One of the latest proposals was outlined in a Washington Post article by Jay Mathews “Do we need lunch periods, or even cafeterias?” 

A Problem with No Easy Answers

As Mr. Mathews aptly notes, whenever the proposal to lengthen the school day to improve student achievement is floated it sinks like a rock to the bottom of the educational idea pond.   The “agrarian” calendar used by the majority of systems (and so appropriate a mere 150 years ago) also appears unlikely to disappear any time soon.  Thus, the newest innovation as outlined in the Post’s article is the extension of the lunch period from thirty minutes to an hour.  The concept is simple—give students the freedom during the extra half of an hour to move about the building seeking extra help for the classes in which they need some remediation.  During this time they can also socialize, relax and escape the peer pressures that can sometimes be experienced in the cafeteria.  It is important to note that what follows here will not be a discussion about nutrition or the aesthetics of a lunchroom.  I will leave those concerns to others.  This conversation is about the best way to meet the academic needs of students.

One Problem, Three Approaches

For the sake of comparison I will briefly outline three remediation plans that I have either experienced, observed or read about.  Two of them utilize time within the established school day and the third requires work after the final bell.

The Extended Lunch Period expands the time allotted for lunch from thirty to sixty minutes.  During this time students can eat lunch, relax with friends or seek out teachers for additional instruction.  This system seems to leave most of the decision making in the hands of the students.

The Embedded Remediation Period creates a separate class period in the school day when students have the opportunity to receive help from teachers.  Most of these models have periods of about thirty minutes with passing time on either side.  Some assign classrooms or locations to students while others are more free form.

The After School Academic Support Plan requires students who are receiving grades of “D” or “F’ to attend thirty to forty minute supplemental sessions with their classroom teachers immediately after the school day ends.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

In the interest of transparency let me state from the beginning I consider the after school approach vastly superior to either of the other two options.  Let me explain why. The three major weaknesses of the two in-school plans are the loss of instructional time for everyone, a lack of precision in targeting the appropriate students to be assisted, and no clear incentive for attending.   The extended lunch option removes thirty minutes of class time each day; the embedded option removes even more time due to the additional minutes needed for transitions between periods.  Even in the best-case scenario, a half an hour per day subtracted from the typical high school 180-day year results in a loss of 90 hours of instructional time.  This reduction translates into the equivalent of three weeks removed from each class.  The embedded program loses nearly four weeks.  But does such a loss of contact time really matter?  I believe the following anecdote goes a long way toward answering this question.

Several years ago I was attending a district-wide department chair meeting and the number one topic was the drop in standardized math scores throughout the district.  For the first time in years instead of rising, the scores were uniformly lower at nearly every school.  Our assignment was to find the cause.  When I returned to school I asked my best Algebra 1 teacher for her explanation.  Without hesitation she responded with one word—“snow”.  The previous year we had unusually bad weather and we missed two weeks of school.   While she had time to cover the material for the test, her normal two-week review period was lost.   With the loss of just ten school days an entire system saw a drop in student scores.  Under either of these two aforementioned plans this loss of time would be even greater and impact every student not just the ones who are struggling.

Both of these options result in every student being affected by the needs of a small portion of the population.  While no one would argue that time to decompress is harmful or think only weak students benefit from time for small group assistance, if remediation is the primary goal for reconfiguring the school day, then it becomes quickly obvious that too large a net is being thrown out to catch a very small number of fish.  Significantly reducing instructional time in every class and for every student is far too high a price to pay for avoiding after school remediation.

Hitting the Bulls Eye

A decade ago my school developed the After School Academic Program (ASAP). For the purpose of the current discussion the broad outline is as follows.  Based on their professional opinion, teachers would target students who they felt would benefit from an additional thirty to forty-five minutes of instruction each week.  Individuals who were receiving poor grades for attendance or discipline issues would be excluded.  Such problems needed to be addressed in a different manner.  The list was then sent to the appropriate administrator.  Students would be assigned 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.  Teacher participation was voluntary even though the after school program was within contract time.  The primary concern for the teachers that volunteered for ASAP was that students were receiving the help that they needed to be successful in their classes.

It seems obvious to me that mandating attendance in an after school program for those who will benefit is a superior option to removing class time from every student.  But I will let the words of an assistant principal I overheard in the hallway express the best answer.  When a student told the assistant principal that he had missed ASAP because of his part time job the response was clear and direct.  “Son, let me be very clear about what is important here.  If you don’t pass your classes, that part time job will be your fulltime job for the rest of your life.”

I think that says it all.

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

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

by Mel Riddile

After finishing a 90-minute presentation a few months ago, I was approached by a friend of mine who happens to be a well-known researcher with a reputation as a discerning critic. He said to me, “Everything you said was correct.” Given my experience with him, this was a high compliment. I held my breath as he continued,  “I just don’t know which point makes the most difference in improving schools. But you missed the key point. 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.”

Enter Teach for America. TFA recruits candidates from the top universities to serve a two-year stint teaching in high-poverty schools. A four-minute NPR segment “Teachers Learn on the Job” provides a good overview for those unfamiliar with TFA. Here are some key points from the segment. The good news is that TFA recruits are highly motivated, welcome the challenge of working in with high-risk students, and they are not easily discouraged. The bad news is that they have little preparation--TFA candidates complete a five-week course and are then sent directly to the front lines--and they are weak in classroom management skills. Experienced administrators know that this combination spells doom for most new teachers and that puts a lot of pressure on their receiving school to provide needed supports. As a result, TFA recruits must rely heavily on the “many mentors and advisors” provided by the program and the school.  However, that is not all the bad news. TFA recruits only commit to two years of service.

The NPR report points out that some principals are reluctant to hire TFA candidates because they understand the importance of continuity. They want at least a three-year commitment. In addition, school leaders understand the investment of time and resources it takes to get a new teacher up to speed. Not all teachers will make it, but when they enter with a pre-conceived notion that this is only a two-year option, turnover becomes a major concern.

Now, back to my friend the expert. I turned to him 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. They don’t walk into schools with all the skills and knowledge that they will ever need as teachers. All new teachers must rely on the mentors and advisors, most of whom are provided by the principal.” If it is great teachers who make great schools, then it is the person who hires, nurtures and trains the teacher who is the difference that makes the difference—the principal.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:00 PM | Permalink