Don’t punish the teachers . . .

Across the country, school districts are implementing something called “value-added measures” in determining teacher bonuses, evaluations, and in the case of Washington D.C., even their jobs. “Value-added” means that teachers are judged based on student performance on standardized tests. They’re touted as “objective” even if “not perfect” (a euphemism for “not accurate.”)

How not accurate?

Twenty-five to thirty-five percent, according to this Washington Post article “Study: Error rates high when student test scores used to evaluate teachers” by Valerie Strauss, July 29th, 2010.

Here in Seattle, the school superintendent tried to implement a Washington DC-style policy that would let her fire teachers based on a value-added measure. The teacher’s union fought back hard, but remnants of it are still in the labor contract. I’ll be keeping my eye out to see what the district does. As a parent, I support my kids’ teachers!

Belated Veteran’s Day Post

Going through my Google Reader, I found this post about mothers talking to their sons about war:

4 Mothers Remember

It inspired me to make this response:

My son asks me questions at bedtime. He started asking war questions on Veteran’s Day – it turns out a teacher in his school had given a talk about being a veteran from Vietnam. Is the Vietnam War still going on? Did Daddy fight in the Vietnam War? Do they send kids to war? Might they send his sister to war? Did the teacher kill anybody in the war? How many people died in the Vietnam War – was it forty? Which was the good guys’ side? Did the teacher have to go to war, or did he sign up?

The next day, he and his sister took our “No Iraq War” sign, which has been floating around near our window since the war began and has long since been torn, folded, and covered with monkey stickers, and taped it high on the window so everyone could see.

Maybe

Lately, I have been thinking a lot of a taoist story I read in my twenties. I wish I could find the original source – looking for it online, I see it many times with no source quoted. It’s also often described as a “positive taoist story.” Is it?

The Taoist farmer lived in a small town in China. People were poor there, and didn’t have any luxuries. One day, the farmer’s horse ran away. Because the town was small, everybody in town knew what had happened. They all came running to the farmer, who was hoeing his field. “That is so terrible, so terrible!” they exclaimed. “Maybe”, said the farmer.

The next day, his son went out to search for the horse. At the end of the day, the farmer was working in his field when his son came home with four horses! Everybody in town came running to the farmer. “That is so amazing. You are so lucky! What good fortune!” they exclaimed. “Maybe,” said the farmer, continuing to work his field.

The son worked to train those wild horses. It was a hard job, and he worked steadily. One day, he was trying to ride one of the new horses, when the horse threw him, and he fell. He was badly hurt. The doctor treated him for a broken leg. Now the son could no longer help with the farm chores. All the neighbors came right over to the farmer, pouring out their consolations. “That is too bad.” “Oh, you were so unlucky.” “How terrible it is that your son was hurt.” The farmer continued planting his seeds and responded, “Maybe”.

About a month later, the king declared war on the nearby territory. All young men were obliged to serve in the army. As the neighbor lads marched off to the war, some of the parents came to the farmer. “You are so lucky. Your son has a broken leg, and can’t serve in the army.” The farmer continued working his field. “Maybe,” was his reply.

Song and a quote

My theme song for today is “Should I stay or should I go” –

Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
If I stay it will be double!

Have you ever outstayed your welcome in a group? Or, rather, clung to a sinking ship like a drowning rat who didn’t know it was time to desert?

BUT, on a happier note, I found a quote about feminist science fiction that I like. It’s from this post on the Geek Feminism blog:

The author of the post, Mary, quoted a 2001 interview by Nick Gevers, a science fiction editor and critic:

[Gevers asks] Who, for you, are the finest SF authors now writing — both your fellow feminist writers and more generally?

[Le Guin answers] First I am to list fellow feminists and then… non-fellow anti-feminists? Come on, Nick, let’s get out of the pigeonholes. If feminism is the idea that differences between the genders, beyond the strictly physiological, are an interesting subject of study, but have not been determined, and so are not a sound basis for society to use in prescribing or proscribing any proclivity or activity — which is what I think it is — then I probably don’t read any non-feminist SF writers, these days. Do you?

Who else can merge biting wit, humor, and dazzling leaps of theory in just one sentence like that? Yes, my favorite author.

Good Teacher, Bad Teacher

Good Teacher, Bad Teacher

When I first had children I had a rude awakening: messages about “bad mothers” were everywhere. If you didn’t nurse, you were a bad mother. If you let your baby “cry it out”, you were a bad mother. If you ran out of diapers and took your baby to the grocery store buck naked (yep, I did that), you were a bad mother.

Of course, there were plenty of messages about “good mothers.” But many of them were conditional on certain behaviors. Good mothers attend to their babies when they cry, never yell at their babies, don’t keep their babies cooped up in carseats all day, don’t let their babies sleep on their stomachs. This is all good advice, but it’s absolutely impossible to follow perfectly, which leads new mothers to wonder: am I a good mother or a bad mother?

Fortunately, not everybody expects perfection from mothers. Pediatrician Winnicot pioneered the concept of a “good enough” mother. She is an “ordinary devoted mother” who attends to their children most of the time, but she leaves them to fend for themselves sometimes. She might slip up and yell, but then she takes a step back and apologizes, and she tries to do it better next time. As it turns out, children actually benefit when mothers and fathers make mistakes, because they learn to rely on their own resources. They learn to cope in an imperfect world.

Now, in the media, there is a lot of talk about “bad teachers” in our K-12 school system. Just as I take affront with the concept of “bad mothers” (and “bad children,” for that matter), I am offended by the concept of “bad teachers.”

Don’t get me wrong. There are some teachers who shouldn’t be in the classroom — sexual offenders, adults who otherwise abuse children, and teachers who don’t care or who gave up.

But these teachers are vastly outnumbered by good teachers – who, unfortunately, often get dissed right along with the bad ones. When people start talking about “bad teachers,” sometimes they’re talking about people who are or could become good teachers. In the first five years on the job, teachers are still learning their trade. They make mistakes. The first year, especially, is a hard one. I learned that when I taught at the college level. My first quarter, I agonized over all the things I was doing wrong, but I also had a friend who was more experienced and helped me put it in perspective.

“It’s a dirty secret and nobody likes to talk about it,” she said. “But the first year, everybody’s a crappy teacher. Just don’t tell your students you’re new, or they’ll eat you alive.”

Was I a “bad teacher” then? One of my students, who cussed me out, thought so.

Or was I a “good enough” teacher – that is, a teacher who made some mistakes? I learned from them, and after some experience and professional development, I got better. Some students called me a “good teacher” or even “one of my best” teachers. Some learned a lot, and others didn’t learn anything at all.

Was I a “good teacher”? Or was I a “good enough” teacher? How could anybody know? And on what basis could anybody make that decision? I got good course evaluation ratings – but not as good as the teacher who neglected to stop his students from plagiarizing.

Although it’s important to have high expectations of teachers, it’s equally important to make sure they’re reasonable. Not everybody will win the “Teacher of the Year” award. But the vast majority of teachers are good – or good enough. Their kids learn. They take professional development courses and continue to improve their teaching. They’re the ordinary, devoted teachers who make a positive impact.

But when the media obsesses over bad teachers, to the point of ignoring the vast majority of good teachers, it hurts teachers overall.

Even worse, good teachers run the risk of losing their jobs. This focus on bad teachers is also paired with an attack on teacher seniority, so that the concepts of “bad teacher” and “senior teacher” have been getting muddled together. But most experienced teachers do better than new ones – so if the experienced teachers lose their jobs, our schools will be left with lower teaching quality overall. This is bad for our schools, bad for our teachers, and bad for our children.

My kids have excellent teachers this year, and I’m glad of it. But I also understand that some years won’t be like that. Some years, the teaching quality will go down a little. My kids might learn less academically, but they might learn better how to cope in an imperfect world.

And that’s plenty good enough for me.

Burned-Out Activists

Last week I went down to the Central library for a meeting with some activists. We did some work and talked about this and that. Then the topic of burnout came up. Somebody or other had put in lots of good work and then left the movement entirely.

“Still, that’s great if somebody can come in and give it their all for a year,” somebody said.

Really? Is that good? To work yourself like a dog for a year and then give up, leaving everybody else in the lurch and needing to work twice as hard because you are gone?

“It would be better if they could put in half that much effort for two years,” I observed.

You know, or a quarter for four years, or whatever.

Lefty activists get to feeling that there’s some crisis that needs their immediate attention, and that most of the world is oblivious to it, and that they are urgently needed because they’re the only ones who can help. Well, yes, the world is in crisis, but the thing is, no one person can fix it.

I take inspiration from the Serenity Prayer, used in AA to help folks chill out: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.” (And holy moses, somebody needed it bad enough to tattoo it on their body!)

And the airplane advice: “Put the oxygen mask on yourself first.”

So how can activists prevent burnout?

1. Recognize the signs. If you wake up thinking about your cause every day, you’re in the danger zone.
2. Put in half the effort. Keep your commitments, but make half as many.
3. Take a day of rest. If the Judeo-Christian God did it, so can you.
4. Take a vacation.
5. Curb those messianic thoughts. That’s right, you’re not the Judeo-Christian God.
6. Ask for help.
7. Think ahead two weeks. Are you coming up on anything that’s going to demand huge amounts of effort? If so, consult #6 and #2.
8. Look around you. Is somebody else in your group verging toward burnout? Can you help?
9. Find something you enjoy doing, and then go do it every day.
10. Laugh.

Well, those are some answers. But they lead to a large and important question:

Can I take my own advice?

Charter Schools and the Reason Foundation

Charter schools are on the rise nationally, despite no evidence of success and evidence of real harm to students. Seattle has voted down charter schools time after time, but 2010 might be the year they establish a firm foothold in our most vulnerable neighborhoods. Charter school companies like KIPP and GreenDot are coming to town to give public and private lectures, probably in an effort to pass state legislation allowing charter schools. Meanwhile, the school superintendent seems to be pushing to close schools that have failed under No Child Left Behind.

What’s behind this huge push?

A previous blog post talked about the influence of billionaires Fordham, Gates, and Broad in the recent anti-union efforts of the organization NCTQ. These billionaires have charter school plans as well, which I’ll discuss in another post.

But another key player is the Reason Foundation, a major libertarian organization partly funded by billionaire David H. Koch. (The Koch brothers fund the Tea Party, and their father, Fred Koch, was a founding member of the John Birch society.)

Through this foundation, Koch has been gaining greater and greater power over public policy. This power is leading to changes in our laws that the vast majority of Americans probably do not want.

The mission statement of the Reason Foundation says:

“We use journalism and public policy research to influence the frameworks and actions of policymakers, journalists and opinion leaders. Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice, competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress.”

This agenda of “choice, competition, and a dynamic market economy” is especially dangerous for our public schools. But that’s the direction our nation’s schools are taking, and it’s because of the behind-the-scenes power of billionaires and organizations like the Reason Foundation and the Fordham Institute.

The Reason Foundation policy paper “Fix the City Schools: Moving All Schools to Charter-Like Autonomy” by Lisa Snell, proposes that schools perpetually compete with one another based on the results of standardized tests, and perpetually close when they fail to meet standards that have been imposed by the top.

Snell writes: “The bottom line is that the district seeks continuous improvement by assessing performance of all schools, closing the lowest performing schools and creating alternate opportunities for students in the least productive schools.” In other words, “the essence of this policy brief” is to “close failing schools, open new schools, replicate great schools, repeat.”

What makes this technique so damaging to students is that charter schools, on the whole, don’t provide a better education. One third of charter schools do worse than public schools – while only one sixth do better, and one half do about the same. This means that approximately one third of students in these closed schools will move on to an even worse education. And every time a school closes, all the students face severe disruptions.

These are not just theoretical outcomes, but represent the actual, lived experience of millions of students in districts where charter schools have taken hold, as in cities like New Orleans, Chicago, and New York. (David H. Koch, by the way, is the richest and most powerful resident of New York City.) It has been devastating for the most marginalized children – poor children, children of color, special education children, and English language learners.

But the actual suffering of children does nothing to deter the Reason Foundation or school district leaders in cities targeted for charter schools. Snell interviewed Louisiana State Superintendent Paul Pastorek and described his vision for public schools:

“There was an article written the other day called ‘Try, Try Again,’ and I think it epitomizes our strategy. We’ll give it to a charter operator. We’ll let them work it. If they fail, we’ll bring in another charter operator and if they fail, we’ll bring in another charter operator until they get it right.”

Our struggling kids can’t wait while policymakers and state superintendents try out this charter experiment. They need real change now. They need an end to the punitive measures in No Child Left Behind.They need librarians, counselors, social services, and tutoring. They need equal access to excellent education, regardless of income, race, ability, or language. They need qualified, experienced teachers with union protections. They need small class sizes.

Because there are no quick fixes.

Because education isn’t about “high performing” or “productive” schools.

It’s about the kids.

Florida and Washington anti-education efforts

I ran across an article on the Web page for the National Education Association about anti-education reform education: “Crist Vetoes SB 6, Takes Bold Stand for Florida Schools.” The Florida Senate had introduced a bill that was so bad that the Republican governor voted against it. In a state that has had trouble with teacher shortages, it would have lowered pay and eliminated job security for teachers.

What struck me is that one of the provisions in this bill were very similar to the SERVE proposal that the Seattle superintendent tried to introduce at the last minute into the teacher contract. The SERVE proposal would have based half of the teachers’ evaluations on the results of a student standardized tests – although research has shown this to be ineffective. Likewise, Florida SB6 would have “required that all teachers be retained, certified and compensated based on student test scores on standardized tests.” The final labor contract in Seattle ended up with some elements of the SERVE proposal, but much weaker.

Another provision bears similarity to a Senate bill that was passed here in Washington, SB 6696. Florida SB6 would have extended the probationary period for teachers to five years. Likewise Washington SB 6696 extended the probationary period from two to three years. Again, it’s much weaker, but it’s the same general concept.

What accounts for these similarities? Basically, the rich and powerful who are pushing for nationwide “education reform” have about the same goals. So anti-education organizations are using the same tactics across all our states and cities.

What’s the bad news? Anti-education efforts are far from over in Seattle. What’s going to happen in the next legislative session? Will we see bills like S B6?

And what’s the good news? Grassroots efforts can stop them. In the case of Florida, tens of thousands of people wrote and called the governor in opposition to the bill. And in the case of Seattle, even though the SERVE proposal was introduced at the last minute, teachers got the word out, and people protested.

If Florida did it, so can we.

Billionaires Vs. The Teachers’ Unions

With the current funding crisis, billionaires in the United States have been donating millions and millions of dollars to education. That’s good, right?

Not really. Their money comes with strings attached. Billionaires have a reform agenda that most people would not support if they knew the full agenda. They have been pushing it aggressively within the last few years, not only at the federal and state levels but also at the levels of individual school districts and local grassroots groups.

This post takes an in-depth look at one small example of how the billionaire reform agenda has affected local education policies in Seattle by showing how billionaires Fordham, Gates, and Broad influenced the local teacher contract negotiations. Why look at local politics? Because that’s where parents and teachers have the strongest voice, and if we can see what’s happening, we can make a difference.

In Seattle, one key link between the billionaires and the Seattle School District is the National Council for Teacher Quality (NCTQ), a nonpartisan research and advocacy group committed to restructuring the teaching profession. Key funders include billionaires Fordham, Gates, and Broad.

Their “About Us” Web page gives a pretty clear idea of the goals of NCTQ, if you look past the fancy language. They want to make “significant reform in how we recruit, prepare, retain, and compensate teachers.”

Was the NCTQ planning to listen to teachers’ voices in making these reforms? Not so much. According to the “About Us” page, they were founded “to provide an alternative national voice to existing teacher organizations.” The NCTQ follows the lead of the Fordham Institute in describing teachers as “human capital.” You don’t listen to capital; you spend it.

Over the years, the NCTQ has collected in-depth information of collective bargaining agreements, including a database of one hundred agreements from all fifty states. It has an analysis of how collective bargaining agreements and state law work together to shape policy. And it is using this information to help enact the reforms it wants.

During the Seattle teacher contract recommendations, the NCTQ made recommendations to the district. Before negotiations began, it produced a report called “Human Capital in Seattle Public Schools.” This report was funded by the Gates Foundation and by an organization called The Alliance for Education, which is funded by billionaires Gates and Broad. It called for changes such as establishing merit pay, halting salary increases after teachers become certified, ending certain seniority privileges, increasing teachers’ work hours, evaluating teachers more strictly, making it harder for teachers to become certified, and using the results of student standardized tests to evaluate teachers and identify the “high performing” and “low performing” teachers.

This last point was most controversial for teachers. Can the results of student standardized tests accurately measure teacher performance? Education research says no, it does not. But education reformers badly want a number to measure performance, something that can be called an objective measurement, and something that can be used as a factor in layoffs and firings.

During contract negotiations, the NCTQ came out with a second report that analyzed the district and union proposals and giving its own recommendations. It listed them as either “important” or “must haves.”

“Must-haves” included:

  • Ending a “super-seniority” policy of factoring seniority into teaching assignments – which means that senior teachers can be laid off more easily
  • Establishing a system of merit pay
  • Using the results of student standardized tests to evaluate teachers

Curiously, in the final contract, the NCTQ got all of its “must-haves.” Why? Partly because it caught teachers and parents unaware and unprepared to make an effective resistance, and partly because the billionaire influence was hidden.

This teacher contract was only one step along the road to education reform for NCTQ and billionaires like Fordham, Gates, and Broad. State law has also advanced the billionaire reform agenda, and we can expect further changes to state law in the upcoming legislative session. This is an explicit goal of the NCTQ, as stated in its article “Invisible Ink in Teacher Contracts.”

This is only one small example of how billionaires have shaped education reform in Seattle. As the diagrams in the Seattleducation2010 blog post “The Lines of Influence in Education Reform” shows, billionaire money has gone to the League of Education Voters; to the Seattle school superintendent; to grassroots groups such as Alliance for Education and Stand for Children; to marketing firms; and to charter schools.

The good news is that if we can watch where reform efforts are coming from, we can start to make an important distinction between the changes that billionaires are advocating and the changes that parents, teachers, and students actually want. We can make an important distinction between billionaire-funded grassroots groups and true bottom-up grassroots groups. And then we can speak up.

Because if it’s a choice between the billionaires and the teachers, I’m going with the teachers.

Why teachers’ unions matter

Teachers’ unions have been getting bad press in the media in the past few years. The media has blamed them for protecting “bad” teachers and ignored their contribution to the stability and quality of our public education system. So what do teachers’ unions do and why does it matter?

If you went to public school, think back to all the good teachers you had. Some of them were probably new, but most had probably been in the education system for a while. During the first difficult year, teachers are still learning the ropes and tend to make all sorts of mistakes. It takes practice before teachers can even get kids to behave. After a couple of years, when good teachers have hit their stride, they make it look so easy.

Once good teachers have mastered their profession, what should school districts do – keep them or fire them? Keep them, of course. But there’s a financial incentive to fire them or lay them off. And that’s where teachers’ unions come in.

Teachers’ unions protect the jobs of our quality, experienced teachers through seniority. Labor contracts and state law specify that when layoffs happen, the teachers with the most seniority are the last ones to be laid off. This means that teachers can go into teaching as a profession, suffering through the first difficult years with the promise of a stable job later on. And this means that our schools will be filled with more experienced teachers, who can collaborate with one another in the long term and build a true school community.

Lately, the media been attacking seniority, ignoring its benefits and focusing on the “bad” teachers that seniority rules protect. It is certainly true that some teachers have been in the profession too long. But it’s not because of seniority rules. Labor contracts actually do have provisions for teachers to be put on probation and let go. Often it’s the principal or school district officials who protect the jobs of teachers who are not capable of doing their jobs.

Teachers’ unions protect the quality of our education in other ways too. Unions negotiate pay, medical insurance, retirement, and sick days – all the things that make teaching a more attractive job. Without these protections, who would enter the profession? The most qualified – or the most desperate?

And teachers’ unions also negotiate mentoring and professional development. These things can actually turn a “bad teacher” into a “good” one. Teaching isn’t a job you can just jump into – it is a profession with a steep learning curve, and teachers need all the help they can get.

So let’s stop taking teachers’ unions for granted. We owe teachers an enormous debt for the time and energy they put into our educations and our children’s educations. It’s time to pay it back.