Policy & Reform

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

Indiana judge: Stop locking up students

An Indianapolis-area judge has sent a letter to district superintendents that insists school administrators stop having so many students arrested. The letter says that 1,500 Indy kids are sent to juvenile detention centers annually, but that 80 percent of those are never charged. What happens instead is that the juvenile centers simply send the kids back, but they have the stigma of being arrested attached.

“Locking up kids is not the right way to solve this problem,” Moores said in her letter that also said she had no intention of processing kids who were not appropriate for a detention center. ““We have to draw the line because we don’t want to make major criminals out of rowdy kids.”

The trend to arrest first, and ask questions later, throughout schools districts in the nation is troubling. Judge Moores hit the nail on the head when she pointed out that sometimes having a child arrested makes even more trouble and I believe it can even be the catalyst that pushes some kids into the criminal lifestyle. Yes, we want to keep all our students safe and violent actions or threats on school campuses must be taken seriously. There needs to be more resolution inside schools, though, instead of always turning to the criminal justice system — particularly for non-violent, minor issues.

We need more support within schools to handle the behavior issues that arise, whether that be for more training for teachers or better equipped school counselors and administrators. Keeping “bad” kids in school benefits us all – not just the student otherwise facing arrest.

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

4 Ways Americans Can Love Education Again

Most patriotic Americans agree education should be the most important issue in the country. After all, a country that lacks knowledge lacks power… right? Common sense tells us that in order to secure a thriving future for our nation’s children, we must become high achievers in the areas of math, reading and science. Unfortunately, the collective concern for education continues to wane. This may explain why education in the United States is considered average when compared to the rest of the world.

Often employed by public officials looking for a platform, the issue of education continues to make headlines, but very little actual progress is being made. In fact, teachers across the country continue to express their dissatisfaction with leadership, salary cuts and a lack of resources. Our children are in crisis; our future is in jeopardy and with each passing day, we become more vulnerable to the darkness of ignorance and unawareness.

According to the Pew Research Center, education ranks among the public’s top ten policy priorities, coming in at number six. At first glance, this may seem impressive, but Pew also reports that in general, Americans have a declining interest in education. Not surprisingly, the economy, job creation and terrorism are the public’s top three priorities, and there’s no question each would have grave consequences if not addressed. While most agree these topics should be focal points of interest, however, many argue the public has lost sight of what should matter most: education.

The reality is our country is guilty of becoming increasingly apathetic about education. As a rule, teachers are grossly undervalued; their significance is continually diminished and their contributions go highly underrated. The majority of school teachers love what they do and consider themselves blessed to be afforded the opportunity to make a difference in the life of a child. Their profound impact on the world of academia, and their willingness to sacrifice high-paying salaries should be applauded. But at what point do we, as Americans, stand up and say that our treatment of teachers is simply unacceptable? When do we decide that a number six priority ranking for education is not good enough – and that our students and teachers mean more to our collective society than that?

Here are some facts about America that reflect our current attitude toward education:

  1. The U.S. is only average when it comes to education. According to data collected by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the performance of American students as compared to their international equivalents is mediocre at best. PISA is an international study that evaluates education systems worldwide every three years. This involves testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students in more than 70 participating countries/economies.Scores from the 2009 PISA assessmentreveal the U.S. performs about average in reading and science and below average in math. Some of the top performers on the PISA evaluation were Hong Kong, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Finland, Shanghai in China, Singapore and Canada. Out of 34 participating countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. These statistics are staggering.
  2. America could become richer by becoming better educated. As reported by the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation, a recent study conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suggests that if the U.S. could boost its average PISA scores by 25 points over the next 20 years, it could lead to a gain of $41 trillion for the U.S. economyover the lifetime of the generation born in 2010. Therein lies the solution to every major problem facing the American people — including the economy, job creation and terrorism awareness.
  3. More money is not the solution to the problem. Based on research provided by  Steven Paine, a nationally renowned American educator, the OECD has offered a number of simple and practical lessons to the United States. According to Paine, money is not the answer to boosting our country’s international educational status, nor will it bring about a greater classroom experience. In studying the world’s highest achievers — Finland, Singapore and Ontario, Canada — Paine suggests our lack of respect for teachers is the nation’s number one enemy of education. “The major difference between those systems and the one in the U.S. had to do with how teachers are valued, trained and compensated,” he noted.

Paine stated in his report to the OECD, “In Finland, it is a tremendous honor to be a teacher, and teachers are afforded a status comparable to what doctors, lawyers and other highly regarded professionals enjoy in the U.S.” The report also suggested the teaching profession in Singapore “is competitive and highly selective, [a country] that works hard to build its own sense of professional conduct and meet high standards for skills development.” The study of Ontario revealed similar findings.

Paine insists, “The U.S. must restore the teaching profession to the level of respect and dignity it enjoyed only a few decades ago. This will not be easy, particularly in the current economic environment with states and localities strapped for funds. But improving the regard with which teachers are held is not principally about how much they are paid.”=

Paine continued, “OECD countries that have been most successful in making teaching an attractive profession have often done so by offering teachers real career prospects and more responsibility as professionals — encouraging them to become leaders of educational reform. This requires teacher education that helps teachers to become innovators and researchers in education, not just deliverers of the curriculum.”

  1. The solution to better educational outcomes is within our reach. The report concluded that the U.S. has the resources and talent to compete more effectively and raise its level of educational achievement. This is contingent upon our willingness and ability to “demonstrate with action that it truly values education, display an understanding of the vital importance of having an educated workforce that can compete globally, and develop the political will to devote the necessary resources for educational reform.”

To make that happen, every American who cares about the economic future of our nation must come together and work to help make that plan a reality. It starts by giving our teachers the support, and financial compensation, they deserve.

We, the People, must take action to rightly place education where it belongs — as our number one concern. Get involved; make your voice heard and take a stand.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

Are Teachers The Greatest Common Core Casualty?

Common Core has certainly changed the K-12 classroom scene in its short implementation and perhaps the group that has suffered the most during the transition period is teachers. In many cases, educators are being asked to accomplish the impossible: prepare students for new test standards without the right training or curriculum to get there.

Governor Cuomo of New York addressed the State Board of Regents last week to criticize legislation that would provide too much leeway (in his opinion) to teachers when it comes to standardized testing accountability. When Cuomo first took office, he set his sights on raising the bar for teaching standards in the state. He successfully implemented higher accountability measures based on evaluations and stricter firing standards for the teachers who continuously performed poorly. He fought to make standardized test results a larger portion of a teacher’s overall grade each year and won. As it stands now, standardized test scores make up 20 percent of a teacher’s evaluation in New York.

Last week he passionately spoke out against a proposal that called for a two-year moratorium on the use of standardized test scores in teacher evaluations, in light of the new Common Core requirements. Teachers behind the proposal argued that not all of the materials to properly teach children according to the new standards have reached classrooms yet – let alone been properly understood and implemented by instructors. Last school year, test scores in New York dropped drastically when standardized tests were rewritten to match Common Core standards. Cuomo felt that any moves to undercut his legislation were a slap in the face and represented regression in the state.

In the end, the Board decided that teachers would have amnesty for two years against low standardized test student performance related to new Common Core measures. It was also determined that schools could have another five years to fully roll out Common Core initiatives. In both cases, I think the right decision was made.

The switch to Common Core standards is a transitional period for teachers, administrators and students. Like any new teaching initiative, Common Core needs some testing of its own and tweaking. In the meantime, should teachers be evaluated or punished? It seems that until all teachers are on the same page with what they should be teaching in their classrooms, it should not be reflected in their job evaluations. There is also a real-world aspect to Common Core measures that simply cannot be realized until these requirements are actually being attempted in actual classrooms and not simply part of a lofty education reform document.

Many teachers’ unions will tell you that all of the constraints placed on performance (like Common Core or standardized testing) are actually hurting the learning process and making it so schools can “game” the system without actually boosting student achievement. On the other hand, pro-accountability politicians and legislators (like Governor Cuomo) feel that placing pressure on teachers to perform according to pre-determined metrics is just part of the job and lends itself well to the bigger business of education.

I know that teaching is not the only profession where workers must “get by” on the resources they receive, but the consequences have the widest ripple effect. A fired teacher impacts more than the educator alone – it effects the entire school community. A good teacher is also not just one who guides students to the right answers on a test; for many students, these authority figures stand as role models and counselors in life. How can any of that be measured on a blanket, widespread test?

Do you think that teachers will be able to reach Common Core requirements quickly? And should they punished if not?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Another Failed Charter: Do These Schools have a Future?

In February of 2013, the Einstein Montessori School in Orlando became a casualty of the charter school experiment. State officials closed the school that had 40 students ranging from third through eighth grade. The school promoted itself as a specialty institution for dyslexic students but teachers told media outlets that there was no curriculum in place, no computers and no school library. Despite these and other red flags the school remained in operation longer than it should have because Florida law currently only allows for immediate school closures for safety, welfare and health issues.

Of course parents of the students at the school are outraged but so are taxpayers. Einstein Montessori received close to $165,000 in state money for operations – money that cannot be recovered or redirected. That number is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the total $287 million in state money that four failed Orlando-area charter schools received in recent years. Consider what that number looks like on a state scale. Now consider it on a national level. With stories like the failure of Einstein Montessori in the headlines, it is no wonder parents and other community members angrily attend charter school meetings and protest against their opening.

Despite this negativity, I’m on the proponent side of charter schools. Katie Ash recently posted the results from a charter school research study out of Stanford that found 63 percent of charter schools outperformed public school counterparts in mathematics. The report looked at schools in New York City but similar results exist across the country. I think that in addition to providing quality education overall, the competitive vibe that charters bring with them elevates the performance of all public schools. Traditional district schools are faced with more pressure to perform in order to keep the brightest students and this translates to higher levels of innovation by administration and teachers. I think that the future of K-12 learners is brighter as a result of the inception of charter schools but only if these schools are continually monitored for quality, strength in management and prioritization of student needs.

For charter schools to succeed in the future, there needs to be more transparency. States have long held a somewhat laissez faire approach to charters, allowing them freedom to operate how they see fit and not stepping in until mistakes are beyond repair. For charter schools to fulfill their mission – which I believe is to add value to the traditional public school system and raise the educational bar for all K-12 students – they need to consider their presence a partnership with the state. Since the first charter schools began sprouting up in Minnesota in 1991, the battle to find balance between accountability and innovation through autonomy has existed; stories like the ones out of Orlando show that not enough progress has been made in this regard. Educators and legislators need to realize the success of each depends on the other and approach charter school goals with this mentality.

For charters to achieve optimal success for students, the public also needs more information on what these schools actually are and how to heighten the public school education experience. While most educators recognize charter schools as public entities, community members often confuse charter schools with for-profit educational management organizations, or EMOs. This leads to an automatic feeling of resentment as students are viewed as a business opportunity. These misconceptions mean that charter schools are often viewed in a negative light for the wrong reasons. As more parents, students and community members understand the benefits of well-run charter schools, better outcomes for all are possible.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, OpEducation, Policy & Reform

High School Dropout Rate: Solutions for Success

This week I’ve been blogging about the bleak numbers that surround the national high school dropout rate and examining more closely the underlying causes. Many of society’s other problems – like unemployment, poverty and overcrowded prisons – can all be linked back to the individual decision to quit high school. It seems that this one factor is an indicator of other difficulties throughout the dropout’s life and it has a negative impact on society as a whole.

If we know that earning a high school diploma is the first step to a better life then that is a starting point for focus. So what can be done to increase the percentage of high school graduates?

Involvement from the business community

The economic impact of high school dropouts cannot be denied. As I mentioned Wednesday, the nation as a whole will miss out on an estimated $154 billion in income over the lifetimes of the dropouts from the Class of 2011. From a business perspective, this is a missed opportunity. There is money to be made and an economic boost is possible – but only if these students stick around long enough to obtain a high school diploma, and potentially seek out college opportunities. Georgia is a great example of a state that has taken advantage of the business community to help improve graduation rates. Areas like Atlanta Metro have some of the strongest business leaders in the nation, and school officials have begun to call on them for guidance and funding when it comes to improving graduation rates.

The report Building a Grad Nation 2012 found that between 2002 and 2010, Georgia showed high school graduation rate improvement from 61 to 68 percent, in part because of involvement from the business community. In that eight-year span, the number of “dropout factories” (schools with 60 percent or lower graduation rates) fell from 1,634 to 1,550. Making graduation numbers an issue of economic stability, and having backup from business leaders, is just one step toward reducing dropout numbers.

Further support outside the classroom

As discussed already, risk factors for dropouts include coming from low-income or single-parent families. Teachers simply cannot address the academic and emotional needs of every student within normal class time, so programs need to be in place for students who are at risk for dropping out. A pilot program in San Antonio called Communities in Schools has set out to accomplish this through offering on-campus counseling services for students on the fence about dropping out. The program offers a listening ear for whatever the students may need to talk about, from lack of food or anxiety about family financial woes. Of the students in the program in the 2012 – 2013 school year, 97 percent obtained a high school diploma instead of dropping out. While students can certainly talk about their studies, the main point of the program is not academic. It is simply a support system to encourage students who may be facing life obstacles to keep pushing forward to finish high school. These programs are often what students need to feel accountability toward the community as a whole and also worthiness for a high school diploma.

Earlier education for all

Much of the attack on the dropout rate happens when teens are already at a crossroads. In truth, the learning and social experiences they have from birth influence their attitudes about education, society and their own lives. Perhaps the dip in dropout rates in the past four decades hinges on another statistic: from 1980 to 2000, the number of four-year-old children in the U.S. enrolled in preschool programs rose from half to over two-thirds. Pre-K learning is only an academic right (free of charge) in 40 states and in 2012, total funding for these programs was slashed by $548 million. Instead of putting money where it belongs – upfront, at the beginning of a K-12 career – lawmakers could be contributing to a higher dropout rate, and economic cost, in future decades. It’s time to stop making the high school dropout issue something that is confronted in the moment; prevention, as early as pre-K learning, is a long-term solution.

What do you think? What is the solution to the high school dropout crisis?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

Economy Improves, School Spending Continue to Fall – So What Gives?

As the news headlines regarding the current U.S. economy continue to improve, there is one area that is still feeling the squeeze from the recession years: K-12 public school spending. A report this month from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that 34 states are contributing less funding on a per student basis than they did prior to the recession years. Since states are responsible for 44 percent of total education funding in the U.S., these dismal numbers mean a continued crack down on school budgets despite an improving economy.

In practical terms, these findings make sense. Property taxes pay much of public education costs and that revenue source is still low. Overall, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that districts collected just over 2 percent lower on property taxes ending in March than in the year before. Furthering the problem is the fact that while states have been cut throat in reducing spending, they have not been as vigilant in raising revenue sources through taxes and fees.

Loss of federal aid to states is also a problem. Even if a state does not need emergency federal funds for specific education needs, they must use school money to cover the cost of natural disasters or other projects that are no longer receiving aid from the federal government.

In extreme cases, like in Philadelphia and Chicago, individual districts have had to tap into other money and reserves to cover the basics of public education in their areas. Take a look at some of the most-telling numbers from the CBPP report on school spending:

14. This is the number of consecutive quarters state revenues have increased, despite stagnant or reduced school spending.

1.3. This is the percent that state funding fell for elementary and secondary schools from last school year.

20. This is the percent that Oklahoma and Alabama have sliced on student spending since the recession began in 2008.

13. This is the number of states, including Wisconsin and California, that have cut school spending budgets by more than 10 percent since the recession began.

15. This represents the number of states that have lower school spending budgets than they did one year ago.

72. This is the amount in dollars that New Mexico increased its per student spending for the current school year. It may seem like a bright spot, but barely dents the $960+ the state has cut per student in just the past five years alone.

20,100. This is the number of teaching jobs that were added in August – but that figure is still over 320,000 less than education jobs in 2008.

12. This is the percent that funding to low-income Title I schools has decreased since 2010, from $17 billion to $15 billion.

11. This is the percent that special education funding has been slashed since 2010, from $13.5 billion to $12 billion.

57. This is the amount of administrators that believe they will need to reduce class sizes this school year to offset budget cuts.

16. This is the number of states that cut pre-K educational per student funding in the 2011 – 2012 school year and 27 had to reduce enrollment numbers.

What do the numbers all mean?

The fact that state revenues are on the upswing but K-12 spending is still at recession-levels is disheartening. It seems that a reprioritization needs to take place in the 34 states that are still in the red when it comes to per student spending today as opposed to 2008. Less state spending on education certainly affects the learning experience but it also impacts other areas of the economy. Unemployed teachers and administrators have less to pump back into the economy and the viscous cycle of K-12 underfunding is furthered.

If we cannot find the funding for our public schools how can we expect things like the achievement gap to close or high school graduation rates to rise? It was understandable that budgets had to be slashed when the bottom dropped out of the economy but now that we are in a more stable place, it is time to get back to funding what matters most: the education of our K-12 students.

Why do you think that per student spending is still falling?

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity, Policy & Reform

Bilingual Education: 5 Reasons it should be Required

By Matthew Lynch

This generation of K-12 students is growing up in a society that is increasingly bilingual.  While foreign language requirements have long been a core requirement for high school graduation—second language classes at an earlier age would improve overall fluency for most students.  It’s time to introduce second-language concepts to the youngest of K-12 students, and here are just a few of the reasons why:

1. Bilingual Children have an Academic Advantage.  Studies in language development show that when young children have more exposure to all languages at an early age, it actually gives them a distinct academic advantage throughout life. There is often an argument that students should first master the English language before branching out to others – but why can’t both be taught simultaneously? Bilingual children are able to focus more intently on the topics at hand and avoid distractions from academic pursuits. They are also able to demonstrate higher levels of cognitive flexibility, or the ability to change responses based on environment and circumstances.

2.  Bilingualism Improves Life-Long Learning Skills. For children to truly see the full potential multi-lingualism has on learning, exposure to non-native languages should actually begin long before Kindergarten.  However, even children who learn their first Spanish words at the age of 5 can benefit from dual language curriculum. Learning is learning. The more that children can take advantage of new concepts, the more in tune their brains will be to all learning throughout life. Some studies have also found that the aging of the brain is slower and the employment rate is higher in adults with bilingual capabilities. Why not set kids up for success and strengthen long-term brain health while we are at it?

3. It Helps to Remove International Language Barriers.  There are also the cultural benefits to children learning two languages together. The children who come from English-speaking homes can lend their language expertise to friends from Spanish-speaking homes, and vice versa. Contemporary communication technology has eliminated many global barriers when it comes to socialization and even doing business. It makes sense that language boundaries should also come down and with help from our K-12 education system, that is possible.

4.  It Leads to Collaborative Learning.  Dual language programs show students a broader world-view, whatever the native language of the student, and lead to greater opportunities for collaborative learning. We should not limit what children learn based on outdated principles masked in patriotism.

5. Early Bilingual Education Increases Fluency in Later Years. It generally takes 5–7 years to be proficient in a second language.  Second-generation Hispanic children raised in the United States usually learn to speak English very well by adulthood, even though three-quarters of their parents speak mostly Spanish and are not English proficient.  However only 23 percent of first-generation immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries—those that began learning later in life, say they speak English very well.  Pew Hispanic Center statistics have shown that 88 percent of the members of the second generation—those children that were introduced to English at an early age, described themselves as strong English speakers.  This phenomenon should apply to children who speak English as their first language as well.  In other words, U.S. students should be introduced to a second language at a young age in order to be fluent by adulthood.  In fact, I believe that all K-12 students should have Spanish and English fluency by graduation.

By implementing bilingual options even younger, K-12 students stand to benefit long-term – both academically and in life. There really should be no reason why these students are not introduced to a second language as early as Kindergarten.

What is your opinion on mandating bilingual education programs in the future?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

School Community Collaboration and Peer Observation as Levers to Student Success

A guest post by Mark D. Benigni, Ed.D., Thomas W. Giard III, and David Levenduski

Meriden Public Schools, Connecticut

We are in an unprecedented era of accountability, a new teacher evaluation and development system, the Common Core State Standards, Smarter Balance Assessments and increased scrutiny from big business, the press and public. Our public schools face decreasing financial resources and additional federal and state mandates. Therefore, creating opportunities for our educators to work together in meaningful ways needs to be a priority for every district. School districts must create systems that encourage our educators to observe, reflect, collaborate, and enhance their instruction.

In Meriden, our deliberate and thoughtful steps to promote peer collaboration at the district and school levels has been a five year journey working with our teachers’ union to design and implement true teacher support programs. Together, union and management are breaking down the barriers that have isolated educators from their colleagues and peers. We first developed a comprehensive approach at the district level to begin having teachers spend time in each others’ classes as a strategy towards instructional improvement. The development and implementation of three distinct programs took shape: our Peer Coaching Program, our Learning Walks Program, and our Meriden Teachers Sharing Success Team.

Peer Coaching Program

Our peer coaching program provides educators with an opportunity to observe other educators in action. The premise of our program is that our best teachers are our best teachers and that educators can help educators improve student learning. The major roles of a peer coach are to collaborate, provide beneficial feedback, share effective teaching strategies, and reflect on teaching and learning. Peer coaches are matched with peers by grade level or content area with someone outside their building. Peer coaches receive training from the National School Reform Faculty and use an established protocol to share honest and open feedback with their peer coach and to guide their reflections regarding what they learn from each other.

The program expectations include peer coaches spending a minimum of one full day in the peer’s classroom. While the minimum is one day in the peer’s classroom, many do more and many have formed lasting professional relationships that continue long after the one year in the formal peer coaching program. Over the last five years, we have sent a clear message to the teachers that this is important work and vital to their own growth as an educator.

Learning Walks Program

Three years ago the district launched a learning walks program in all twelve schools. The learning walks program involves having teams of teachers, with an administrator, observe classroom instruction in their own building using an evidence-based protocol for data collection and debriefing. We collaborated with The Connecticut Center for School Change to develop a model, based on instructional rounds, which could be adapted to the building level and inclusive of teacher teams as opposed to simply teams of administrators. Two teams of four to five teachers visit up to six classrooms for about 15-20 minutes each, using a descriptive evidence data collection strategy. The classroom visitations are centered on a problem of practice or focus area and teachers are there to observe teacher and student actions. Teachers use data collection sheets that ask them to observe within the context of these three questions: What is the teacher saying and doing and to whom? What are the students saying and doing and to whom? What is the content/task? These data-gathering questions are used in a comprehensive debrief process of the classroom observations. Data is shared as common instructional patterns observed, not individual teacher critiques.

Our teachers constantly tell us that the learning walks debrief is an exceptional professional development experience. The debrief is a three-step process. It starts with an individual debrief where the teachers review their classroom evidence in the context of the focus area and select key pieces of evidence from each of the rooms visited. Evidence may only contain what they actually saw occurring in the classroom and cannot include any judgment or assumptions. Teacher names are not used. The second step of the debrief process entails having teachers share their evidence with their team and evidence is organized into patterns by the two respective teams.

The third step in the debrief process is each team reports out to the whole group and evidence is discussed, challenged, and reflected upon by all teachers in attendance. The whole group then answers three questions that will be shared with the faculty at a future meeting. The questions answered by the teachers are: What did your group observe as strengths? What did your group observe as possible areas for growth for our school? What questions/suggestions can you pose that will help our school move instruction related to our focus area to the next level? Are their implications for future professional development? Any teachers observed on a learning walks day become part of the learning walks classroom visitation team next time. This process helps us promote an atmosphere and cycle of continuous improvement in our schools.

Meriden Teachers Sharing Success Team

As Meriden rolled out their new teacher evaluation and development process, a commitment was made to provide educators with additional development and growth opportunities. As a result, union and management created the Meriden Teachers Sharing Success Team (MTSS) to recognize our exemplary educators and to provide support and growth opportunities for teachers. MTSS team members are tenured Meriden Public School teachers who open their classrooms for peer visitations and avail themselves for discussion and reflection with their peers who visit.
At the elementary level, MTSS teachers are educators who have led their students to substantial student growth for four consecutive years. We have MTSS teachers at all grade levels from kindergarten through grade 5. At the secondary level, our major instructional focus has been on creating student-centered learning environments. Secondary MTSS teachers are teachers who are effectively implementing student-centered learning in their classrooms. These teachers are identified by their principals and are vetted by a group consisting of central office administration, teachers’ union leadership, and administrators’ union leadership. All MTSS teachers are trained by the National School Reform Faculty to assist their colleagues in their continual growth process.

Teachers can self-select to go observe an MTSS teacher or it might occur after a conversation with a coach or supervisor about how best to enhance their classroom instruction. Regardless of how a teacher decides to observe an MTSS teacher, all who take advantage of this program have shared that it has improved their instructional practice.

The School-Based Launch

Initial conversations: There are two words that can have a negative impact on educators, and leave any good idea or intention on the cutting room floor: initiative and mandate. In the dynamic world of education, initiatives and mandates are thrown at educators with the speed and fury of a tsunami. Wave after wave of expectations crash in from legislators, state departments, districts and administrators. If these initiatives and mandates are not carefully presented with connections to improvement in practice, they are doomed from the onset.

So the school principal presented the idea in a way that connected the practice to what was being implemented across the district, and explained how staff can improve and learn from each other. Prior to beginning to have teachers observing one another, every opportunity, from faculty meetings to data team meetings to individual conferences, were used to emphasize and highlight the importance of collaboration and sharing of best practices. Beyond data teams, the principal worked in conjunction with the staff to develop an intervention and enrichment system which increased opportunities to collaborate to plan instruction, and allowed teachers to share students and begin to blur the lines regarding who “owned” the students. Their own data was utilized to build confidence and exhibit the instructional strengths that were being cultivated within the school. Staff came to realize that they did not need to always look outside the school for professional development opportunities; the professional expertise was among them. These conversations built the foundation for the next stage; creating the system.

Creating the system: With the foundation laid to enable staff to increase collaboration, peer observations as a supportive tool for strengthening instructional practices was a natural extension of our efforts. The next step was to share the idea of utilizing an observation to connect a teacher who shows a strength in an area to a teacher who exhibits a weakness in that particular area; all based on student achievement data and on the premise of supporting, not evaluating. These conversations were accomplished through the district’s process of goal setting meetings, which occur at the beginning of the year when student-achievement goals are set for the school year. These meetings became the catalyst to connect teachers for observations with an instructional focus in mind.

With building leadership’s support, time was re-engineered to create opportunities within the schedule for the teachers to conduct their observations. A reflection sheet, which the observer used to document the experience and reflect on what they observed and how the observation would impact or influence their future instruction, was developed. Then came the light bulb moment at a state-run professional development workshop regarding adaptations to the data team process during which a new mandate was presented for developing a SMART goal for the teachers. While other districts and schools expressed concern, the staff conferred and decided that instead of adding another mandate or initiative to teachers’ already full plates, the peer observations would be used as the new mandated adult SMART goal.

It was at this point that peer observations became “officially mandated”. This was viewed in a positive light by the staff because it involved the utilization of a practice which had already begun instead of adding yet another initiative or mandate. The system for peer observations was now created and in motion, and the teachers were supportive because they were involved and part of the decision to mandate the practice.

Releasing Responsibility: The overall goal was to begin a practice that would ultimately become a natural part of our professional routine. Through the creation of a schedule in the office where teachers could sign-up for times to observe others, we quickly began releasing responsibility to the teachers. Securing sub coverage at the beginning of the year assured a successful release of responsibility to the teachers. Another change that provided momentum was the adoption of a new district evaluation plan. Like the teacher SMART goal that was originally linked to the peer observations, the new evaluation plan contained a professional practice goal for teachers. This goal required the teacher to collect and present artifacts and evidence which connected to the identified practice the teacher selected. The peer observations and accompanying reflection sheet served as valuable artifacts for this professional practice goal.

Culture of Collaboration: A wonderful transformation began to unfold as the staff progressed; teachers were not only scheduling times for the peer observations, but teachers were also conducting observations on their own during preparation periods. The teachers were now viewing the peer observations as important for improving their instruction, and were using their own time to conduct them. The school was also beginning to see improvements in student achievement, which provided tangible evidence of improvements in practices. The staff was also becoming much more comfortable with the practice of observing each other to improve their own teaching practices. It was not “taboo” for teachers to admit they had areas for growth, and more importantly they realized there were available resources in their own building to assist. In essence, the school was fast-becoming a learning community. As the school was progressing with its own internal observation system, staff saw the connections to the district’s initiatives of MTSS and learning walks, and the value in their own internal peer observation system. The connections between the district initiatives and the school-based observation initiative provided a level of comfort with opening classroom doors that did not exist previously.

Moving Forward: As the journey of sharing best practices through professional collegiality and peer observations continues, the plan will be to have all teachers within a grade level conduct “vertical” observations. This would include visiting and observing instruction of classrooms one grade below and one grade above the grade they teach. This will allow the teachers to understand the rigor of instruction at those grade levels, and how it impacts their own instructional practice at their grade level. Wherever the school proceeds to next with observations, the idea is to build upon the level of trust, support and collaboration that has been established. The “culture of collaboration” has been instrumental in improving the way the staff operates on a day to day basis, and the results seen in student achievement and teacher development have validated the efforts.

As a district, we are moving forward together with a foundation of trust and open-mindedness. We are a collaborative team that has created a unifying vision for our district. We believe that every child is entitled to a high quality education, that teachers and leaders impact every child’s achievement, and that collaboration improves student learning and sustains our mission to see our students make positive progress.

Just this past year, we achieved the highest scores in district history in grade 3 reading, grade 5 science, grade 6 math, grade 7 reading, and grade 8 reading and writing. Our school climate data were equally impressive. Since 2010–2011, suspensions have decreased by 58%, expulsions are down 88%, and school-based arrests have been reduced by 77%. In the Meriden Public Schools, we know that in this era of accountability, our approach has to be more than simple compliance; we have to create a professional learning community where teachers learn from one another. We must create schools where students and staff want to be.

___

Mark D. Benigni, Ed.D. ([email protected]) is Superintendent of Meriden Public Schools and is Co-chair of the Connecticut Association of Urban Schools Superintendents. Dr. Benigni also serves on the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) national Governing Board.

Thomas W. Giard III ([email protected]) is Assistant Superintendent for Personnel and Staff Development of Meriden Public Schools and is an adjunct professor at Sacred Heart University in the Educational Leadership Program.

David P. Levenduski ([email protected]) is Principal at Ben Franklin Elementary School in the Meriden Public Schools and is the architect of Meriden’s school-based peer coaching model.

___
Resources:
City, E.A., Elmore, R.F., Fiarman, S.E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional Rounds in Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Govindarajan, V. & Trimble, C. (2010). The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Kelly, M. (2007). The Dream Manager. New York, NY: Beacon Publishing

Sinek, S. (2009). Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. (2011 ed.). New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Teitel, L. (2013). School-Based Instructional Rounds: Improving Teaching and Learning Across Classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional Learning in the United States: Trends
and Challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Wong, K., & Nicotera, A. (2006). Successful Schools and Educational Accountability: Concepts and Skills to Meet Leadership Challenges. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Survival Tip: Integrating Standardized Test Preparation into the Curriculum

In this age of accountability, teachers are responsible for ensuring that their students learn. In order to measure what students know and don’t know, states all over the country administer standardized tests. Most new teachers are usually clueless in terms of how to best prepare their students for these high stakes tests, and this in turn causes a lot of anxiety. Most are left with one simple question, “What can I do?” Experienced teachers will tell you that standardized test preparation should be part of the day-to-day curriculum, but you should not teach to the test. Below are some tips that will help you incorporate standardized test preparation as part of the regular day at school:

• Before you can help your students prepare for the standardized test, understand the components of the test yourself. Check the specific areas that the test emphasizes. If you have not received the test guidelines from the school administration, you can get the guidelines as well as older versions of the test from your state department of education’s website.
• When you know the areas that are covered on the standardized tests and the amount of emphasis that each section receives, you can ensure that you cover those areas well in advance.
• Do not spend time on a specific section just because it is a favorite of yours.
• Use the older versions of the standardized tests and incorporate typical questions into unit tests and weekly quizzes. This ensures that the students get used to the format and do not dread the unfamiliar format when it appears on the standardized test.
• A very typical aspect of the standardized test is the assessment of higher order thinking skills. If you teach your students to think critically, you can be sure that they will be able to handle any question that appears on a standardized test. Raise the bar by creating class discussions that allow them to evaluate, analyze, synthesize and apply what they have learned.
• Cross curriculum connections help the students learn information more authentically. You can use your language class to teach about historical personalities and more.

If you are able to integrate standardized test preparation into the daily curriculum, you can be sure that none of your students will be apprehensive or nervous about these once a year tests that are so feared otherwise. Good Luck!

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

Moving ‘quality’ teachers between schools will not help disadvantaged children

Paul Thomas, Furman University

The bi-partisan federal legislation in the US popularly known as “No Child Left Behind” was passed during George W Bush’s first term. It had two important goals: to increase scientifically based education research and to narrow the racial achievement gap. Both goals have proven to be elusive and complicated.

Scientifically based education research has been ignored repeatedly in the US. Instead, many ongoing school reforms continue despite limited evidence from the research base of their efficacy. These include reforms such as the “Common Core standards” (a national curriculum for all public school students), the widespread take-up of charter schools, and increasing support for the alternative (non-certification) teaching programme, Teach for America.

Current education policy has also increased debates about and efforts to address teacher quality. Now, a renewed interest in how teachers are assigned to particular schools appears to be gaining momentum. The US department of education is developing a 50-state strategy to equitably distribute the best teachers around the country.

Hard to identify a good teacher

Traditionally in the US, teacher quality has been rewarded based on years of experience and advanced degrees. But few efforts to identify what makes a good quality teacher have proven effective. More recently, policies that quantify teacher quality using value-added methods, combined with paying on merit, have replaced traditional teacher compensation and evaluation.

Value-added methods being adopted across the US involve students sitting pre- and post-tests and using that data in complex calculations that determine each teacher’s “value”, or impact on students’ test scores.

While linking teacher quality to student test scores has political and popular appeal, that process is less precise than advocates claim. Further reforms, aimed at determining teacher quality, are addressing how students are assigned to teachers.

A report for the Education Trust, a US not-for-profit, back in 2006, detailed the inequity of teacher assignment by social class and race across the US. It found that high poverty and high minority schools have a disproportionate number of un-certified and under-certified teachers, especially for subjects such as maths. These students were also disproportionately assigned to new teachers.

The study’s authors, Heather Peske and Kati Haycock, concluded: “Overall, the patterns are unequivocal. Regardless of how teacher quality is measured, poor and minority children get fewer than their fair share of high-quality teachers.”

Flawed move towards pay for results

Since teacher quality and assignment have historical and current patterns of inequity, many reform advocates promote greater use of value-added methods to address that gap. But as maths teacher and blogger Gary Rubinstein explains, trying to use these methods to close the teacher quality gap is also flawed.

He says there is a problem with the implication that those teachers who are rated as “effective” in one school with a wealthier population, will “still get that same ‘effective’ rating if they were to transfer to a poorer school”.

Identifying teacher quality is complex not only because different populations of students affect teacher quality but also because teacher quality contributes only a small percentage of measurable student achievement.

While states in the US are increasingly replacing traditional practices for evaluating and compensating teachers, Stanford University’s Edward H Haertel warns this can translate into “bias against those teachers working with the lowest-performing or the highest-performing classes”.

“Attempts to recruit and retain the best teachers where they are needed the most,” explains former UCLA lecturer Walt Gardner, “have largely been unsuccessful”. These earlier and even more recent efforts have focused on increasing teacher pay to attract high-quality teachers.

Repackaging incentives and bonuses will not retain experienced and effective teachers in high-needs schools and students. Gardner argues that instead:

If we want to create equitable distribution of teachers, we have to make conditions for teaching in schools serving poor and minority students so attractive that few will refuse the opportunity to teach there. I suggest starting with three periods a day, each containing a class of no more than 15 students. I’d then add a non-certificated adult to act as a teaching assistant for each teacher. This will be expensive, but if we’re serious about getting the best talent it’s the price we have to pay.

Getting the conditions right

For students living in impoverished homes, the conditions of living are powerful forces that overwhelm their ability to be successful at school. Since the conditions of learning at school tend to reflect those living conditions, students are further alienated from opportunities to learn.

For teachers, the conditions of teaching are also vital. The two original goals of “No Child Left Behind” are likely best served by addressing class size, teacher autonomy, facilities conditions, and schools as communities.

But attracting high quality teachers will have to do more than changing the teaching conditions in high poverty schools, which tend to reflect the same inequities found in the communities they serve.

As long as schools in the US allow children to be doubly disadvantaged by their home communities and their schools, teachers are unlikely to find either that community or that school a place to spend their career.

Policies addressing teacher quality and equitable teacher assignments must address inequity and poverty both in society and in schools. These commitments should prove to be far more effective than measuring teacher quality based on test scores or offering teachers increased salaries.

The Conversation

Paul Thomas, Associate Professor of Education, Furman University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share