On education reform

http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/boards-eye-view/2012/speaking-truth-to-power.html

Check out this article!

MY WEBPAGE

Please visit my Webpage at www.melaniekurdys.com  too.

Teachers as Professionals

Somewhere along the line, "we" stopped treating teachers like professionals and many teachers started behaving like they were not professionals.  I can't say which came first;  perhaps a little like the chicken and the egg.  But clearly, one behavior perpetuates the other.

But here we are and this is a serious problem.  I believe we must get a handle on this problem if we are to reverse the trend and really make gains in educating all our children to be prepared to face the future productively.

I use the quotes around "we" because I think the non-professional treatment of teachers comes from many sources.
    -  The Union leadership treats teachers like a source of revenue and power, not really engaging in a productive conversation about improving student achievement and negotiating to get teachers at the table where important education policy decisions are made.
     - School administrators force technology, textbooks, curriculum, schedules, and more on teachers in a "one size fits all" model.  I used to develop computer applications for a living.  In a non-professional environment, we used a push strategy for new systems.  A management team and a select group of "users" would specify the terms and operation of a system, then the system would be implemented and ALL members of the user group would be required to use this new system.  This model works when you are driving technology for efficiency and accuracy, like check-out clerks, bank tellers, line operators and so on.  But systems developed for professionals are more a pull strategy where system design is more flexible with parts that can be tailored to the individual preference.  The professionals could opt-in to using the new system if and when they determined it would have a positive effect on their outcomes.
    - Policy makers convene great thinkers from academia, business leaders, opinion leaders,
consulting companies and a few select teachers (rarely parents) and develop new policies, and unfortunately even practices, that will then be imposed on all teachers.  The current Common Core Standards and Assessments is a perfect example.  Here is a link to an Ed Week article expressing a similar concern.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/08/02/37ewing.h31.html?tkn=WRPF2Huks6WDfrzfbkVn4%2FUHvTyWpaLnYTZD&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

   - Universities that offer schools of education frequently look at these schools as cash cows for the other, more expensive and elite programs the institution wants to offer.  Hundreds and hundreds of students can be processed through courses that are not all that hard, ensuring a high graduation rate.  Accreditation for schools of education in Michigan is not geared around inspiring especially talented young adults to high level of personal learning and creative thinking about how to teach children.  Here is an interesting article about this concern from Hillsdale College's perspective.
 http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2596

On the other hand, no group can just demand to be treated like professionals and have it happen.  Professionalism is an attitude, a concern toward outcomes, a commitment to excellence, a willingness to police oneself and ones peers.  The more credible, intentional and impactful this police effort, the faster the transition of those around them.

One way we can create an education system that allows the profession of teaching to re-emerge and grow, is to create a system that offers robust choice, not only for parents and students, but for teachers!  If teachers have viable choices about where to teach, especially without having to sell their home and leave their community, they will pick those institutions that offer them the opportunity to be professionals.  And when the teachers who work there behave like committed, results-oriented, accountable professionals, children will learn.  Then more children will enroll and more teachers will want to be there and so on.

The Significance of a Starfish

I came across this tale a while ago, and it has stayed with me:

There once was a wise man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach before he began his work. One day he was walking along the shore, as he looked down the beach, he saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself to think of someone who would dance to the day and he began to walk faster to catch up.

As he got closer, he saw that it was a young man, and the young man wasn’t dancing, but instead he was reaching down to the shore, picking up something, and very gently throwing it into the ocean.

He called out, “Good morning, what are you doing?”

The young man paused, looked up and replied, “Throwing starfish into the ocean.”

“I guess I should have asked: WHY are you throwing starfish in the ocean?”

“The sun is up and the tide is going out. And if I don’t throw them, then they’ll die.”

“But, young man, don’t you realize that there are miles and miles of beach and starfish all along it. There must be thousands of them on this beach alone. You can’t possibly hope to make a difference!”

The young man listened politely, then bent down, picked up another starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves and said, “To THAT one, I made a difference.”

The message I got from this is clear: I cannot change the whole world. But I can make a difference.  If I can enable one more child to have an opportunity, to be taught be a teacher who cares if that child learns, then I have made a difference.

COMMON CORE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS 
June 2012 Melanie Kurdys
 A number of years ago, a collaboration of state governors and superintendents of education began work on a common set of educational standards. Their goal was to provide a common definition of what children should know and be able to do for each grade K-12, theoretically lifting up all states to the highest standards.

 Since then, the U.S. Federal government has become involved, first offering incentive money to states who commit to following these common standards, then offering to fund the development of new assessments to go with the standards and now, planning to tie Title 1 Funding for special education to the requirement that states use these standards and assessments.
 
There are three reasons why citizens must stand up and stop this march to national standards.
1) The standards are not modeled on the most rigorous and proven standards in the U. S., which would be Massachusetts. In fact, the standards are not as rigorous as what many states have, including Michigan.
 2) Even if the standards were excellent, the U. S. Federal government has no constitutional standing to take over the development, maintenance and assessment of educational standards. This right and responsibility belongs to the states. In the Michigan constitution, educational leadership is defined as being determined by “local control” putting the ultimate rights in the hands of parents.
 3) There is no evidence that spending all the time and money required for developing and implementing these new standards and assessments will result in better student achievement outcomes. Evidence both nationally and internationally shows that better student achievement outcomes come from empowering parents with educational options and engagement and excellent teachers.
 Here are some additional resources that explain the issue in more detail. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/states-must-reject-national-education-standards-while-there-is-still-time?query=States+Must+Reject+National+Education+Standards+While+There+Is+Still+Time

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120619/OPINION04/206190345?fb_action_ids=4318849728204&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOB1uCegUPc&feature=youtu.be

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/protest-builds-against-pe_b_1586573.html

  We must come together in Michigan to stop Common Core. Tell your legislators to take action to prevent Common Core from being implemented in Michigan. Vote for legislators and state school board members who oppose Common Core. We all know the education system in Michigan must be improved, but we must retain the right to determine our own destiny without federal intervention.

Waiver to NCLB Disappointing for Children

MBOE President John Austin
Superintendent Michael Flanagan
Trustee Eileen Lappin Weiser
Michigan Department of Education


Dear Michigan Education Leaders,

I am writing regarding a recent article I read in the Kalamazoo Gazette, http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/08/michigan_education_department.htmle, reporting that the Michigan Board of Education sent a letter seeking a waiver from the Federal Government to the goals of No Child Left Behind from 100% proficient in 2014 to 80% in 2014 and 100% in ten years. The article contained a caveat that perhaps 100% will never be attainable, though I realize this is not necessarily the opinion of your Board.

As the highest level of educational leaders in our state, you hold the key to balancing the need to improve educational outcomes for all of Michigan’s children with the institutional resistance to change and accountability. Overall, I believe the Michigan BOE and MDOE have been doing an excellent job with this incredibly challenging task. Your commitment to creating high expectation state exams, useful online reporting, regular assessment and continuous improvement is notable. Some have complained about the “tests constantly changing” or “the cut scores constantly changing”, but I see these changes as a reflection of your commitment to continuously raise the bar for yourselves and for the education community in Michigan. Unfortunately, I do not believe most of the K-12 educational institutions in Michigan have demonstrated a similar commitment.

Let’s review a little history. NCLB became law January 8, 2002. The original goal was that all children would pass their state proficiency exams by 2014. This meant every child beginning school in first grade in 2002 and every year after would need to be proficient. It is true that at the time, not all states had robust exams, so the definition of “proficient” was debatable. However, it seems absolutely logical that educators would assume that minimally this would mean that every child should be able to read at grade level by the end of third grade and until graduation. (You know the old saying, up until the end of third grade, we learn to read. After third grade, we read to learn.)

I have been active with Portage Public Schools since 2001. When NCLB became law, PPS did not establish district goals to achieve 100% of students proficient in reading. As a matter of fact, PPS has never set a 100% proficient goal for reading. Just this last year, PPS discovered that 25% of the freshman class was reading below grade level. This is the class of children who were in fact first graders in 2002! The sad truth is that finding any school district in Michigan truly committed to 100% proficiency is very difficult.

So it seems, after 10 years of a 12 year target, to ask for another 10 years is to let our children down. School districts and the adults who run them must be held accountable now. If a significant number of our schools fail NCLB, it is because we are failing our children, perhaps not all children, but too many children. This visibility of failure, though at first will be defended with excuses, can create a motivation for real change that has yet to permeate a public school system whose leaders believe they will never actually be held accountable.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet and hear Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone. If you have the chance to hear him speak, it is well worth the time. His message is clear, we must respond to the urgent need to be accountable to teach all children now. He refers to a 2009 Military Readiness research report to make the urgency and magnitude visible. http://d15h7vkr8e4okv.cloudfront.net/NATEE1109.pdf The future of our country depends on it.

An Assessment of the Parent Empowerment Reform Package

Analysis for Consideration September 2011
From Melanie Kurdys
Assessment of the Parent Empowerment Education Reform Package

This legislative package is very powerful in that it does not prescribe a solution to achieving the important goal of “All children learning at high levels and ready for college”. It offers a range of opportunities and choices and puts those choices in the hands of parents and students.
The assessment documented here includes discussion regarding:
1. The need for something different than the status quo
2. Evidence indicating this approach would work
3. Potential issues remaining unresolved
4. Hurdles you might encounter as the legislation moves forward

1. The Need (Items in parenthesis offers additional areas of research for background if needed.)

Currently, students are required by law to attend school from age 6 to 18. Most attend a school determined for them based on where they live. If parents and students are unhappy with their defined school, some alternatives do exist:
- They can enroll in a local charter school at no additional cost if there is one accessible and if that school has openings. (Assessment of # of communities served and enrollment versus demand.)
- They can enroll in a private school at additional cost (enrollment & average cost to parents)
- They can seek “school of choice” reassignment with permission of their home school superintendent assuming a neighboring school participates in choice. (Number of districts opting out, number of students taking advantage of the option)
- They can move to a different community (Could do a recap of the difficulties in Michigan in selling homes and losing home value)
- They can homeschool. (Report participation levels, student achievement, hurdles to implementation.)
A brief review of the MEAP, MME and ACT scores in Michigan clearly show that 10 years into the No Child Left Behind effort to teach all children to high levels, the results are nowhere near 100%. This is true in the best and worst school districts. This is true even with the noted choices that are available.
Some will argue the goal is too hard. Some will argue some children just cannot be expected to achieve at high levels. Ask them, “Which children will you look in the eye and tell them they are the ones we will not teach?”
Some will argue the tests are an unfair or inaccurate assessment. Challenge these people to give an alternative. In the 10 years of NCLB, no viable alternative to assessing achievement has been offered. And then ask them, “Suppose a better measure was in fact available today, would that measure indicate that all children are achieving at their highest potential?” I would be seriously surprised if anyone said yes.
Ask “If we surveyed Michigan parents of school age children, would 100% of them say that their children are receiving a high quality education that allows them to be ready for college and life?” If so, then perhaps there truly is no need to offer something else. (Find research reporting parent satisfaction with current schooling in Michigan).
Are we satisfied with the educational outcomes return on our educational investment? Governor Snyder does a good job clarifying that this is in fact not acceptable when we benchmark ourselves nationally.
So if we are committed to providing an environment in the State of Michigan where all children are truly provided an opportunity to achieve, if we are committed to leaving no child behind, at a investment level that our state can spend, then something other than the status quo must be available.
2. Evidence
Stay away from the specific debate about any one of the alternatives being offered. The list includes a wide variety of strategies. None of these alternatives has developed a track record of un-debatable success (although there are research studies I have found showing trends and improvements over time). But none of them are untested in some regard and all have shown some level of success and all have a constituency of believers. In addition, the list includes mechanisms for both the private sector and existing public schools to enter this new arena and innovate. What this package is doing is reducing the monopoly public schools have by one more big step.
The most powerful research I found in support of this strategy is from the Urban Institute Research of Record:
Public School Choice and Student Achievement in the District of Columbia by Austin Nichols and Umut Ozek
Publication Date: December 15, 2010
Permanent Link: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=1001499
Abstract
This study examines the multi-faceted public school choice environment in the District of Columbia and the effects of alternative public schools on the achievement levels of students who exercise this type of school choice. The results indicate that students who attend out-of-boundary public schools and charter schools significantly outperform similar students who attend in-boundary public schools in both reading and math tests. We rely on instrumental variables framework to disentangle the underlying reasons behind this achievement gap and find that the observed differences are likely due to the positive effects of alternative public schools.
http://www.urban.org/publications/1001499.html
The bottom line of this research is that it does not matter very much what parents choose, choice itself increases the performance of students. It takes into consideration the likelihood that parents who choose are more engaged in their children’s education, which is a supporting factor in student achievement. 3. Potential Unresolved Issues
There will likely be significant push-back from superintendents and even school boards. Reently the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) reported the results of a survey of their members. They were asking if the members wanted to roll into the membership scope Charter School Boards. The results were mixed, but the majority said NO!! (A sad commentary on the MASB membership in my opinion, since it clearly shows a bias to protecting schools over children…editorial comment, sorry.) But the legislation contains opportunities for public schools toexpand these choice options to their parent/student market!
School districts may begin to spend precious funds on advertising and marketing. I have seen it already in some communities where they pay to post on billboards in neighboring districts. I suppose one could argue that this use of money should be permitted and the natural consequences of not spending the money in the class room for better teachers or smaller class sizes will ultimately impact the school’s performance in student accountability. But this line of discussion assumes you can hold a tight line on dollars allocated and accountability measures and consequences. Neither of these assumptions exists right now, so I am concerned about this potential “mis-use of funds”.
There is a legitimate concern among public schools as to “who is stuck with the most difficult to teach students?” Currently, it is the neighborhood school. Let’s assume these are the very students whose parents will not even try to choose an alternative and are highly disengaged. This really does pose a problem for these schools. I cannot offer a solution to this yet but I am thinking about it and raising the thought to others in an effort to find some workable ideas. (Like schools can reject a student if…). Nonetheless, a response to this argument might be…”The resistance of some parents to be good parents should not prevent those who want to be good parents from having the resources they need to be successful”.
Public schools may be left with empty buildings or an insufficient supply of children to be cost effective. First, I would argue that if that many parents are choosing something else, this school should close. Schools are not meant to be employment agencies for teachers and administrators. Perhaps then the legislation may benefit from some supporting legislation allowing charters or others to buy or rent school buildings or space within buildings. This option may already exist, but I am not certain.
4. Hurdles
I think it is safe to assume most parents not employed by a school district or supporting organization will support this legislation. I have found this in my informal discussions with people. I was surprised to find that a fair number of early childhood people reacted negatively, even though they strongly advocate for parent choice in early childhood programs. To be honest I was quite baffled by this reaction. Not only that, but the emotion in the reaction made coherent, logical discussions difficult first time around.
It appears there issome amount of support in the sitting school boards (maybe as much as 40%) around the state and a faction within the administration of MASB and MASA.
I was not sure where I stood, although philosophically I support the concept of a competitive market for education. I have been incredibly disappointed with public education “powers that be” and their unwillingness to commit to the goal of educating all children. It is certainly not possible to achieve a goal you are not even trying to achieve! The research I found really makes me believe this is a worthwhile effort in the right direction, though probably very politically challenging.