On the Shoulders of Giants

What Kind of Apps Do Teachers Want?

I recently had the opportunity to provide feedback for a large educational software company on two prototypes for an App designed for English teachers. It was an interesting way to spend an hour and I got a nice gift certificate to Amazon out of the deal. 

Without saying much about the idea, since it is not mine to share, I'll say that the app was geared towards helping teachers plan curriculum with attention to each standard.  Inherent in the design was that teachers would select lesson plans from a menu of pre-created materials.  This struck me, because most teachers I know do not use many pre-created materials.  

I found myself explaining that I occasionally use materials out of a text book or off the internet. More often, I might borrow something from another teacher.  In all of those cases, I usually adapt such materials for my particular group of students, my own delivery style, and other factors such as the amount of time I want to allot to the lesson or activity.  

The feedback I ended up giving was that teachers need anything that can help us organize ourselves and our students' learning better.  When it comes to curriculum, we want access to good resources that respond to our students' needs and fit into our overall curriculum focus, but we need flexibility.  

User-friendly ways of tracking and sharing information, materials, lessons taught, observations and assessment data could be very helpful and desirable for teachers.  The best apps generally increase the user's autonomy and efficency--like the App that tells you when the next train is coming, allowing you to make a more informed decision about where to be, possibly freeing you up for 20 minutes while you would otherwise have been waiting for a train.  Online gradebooks can act like this too.  I have a few App ideas of my own I may pursue at some point. 

Needless to say I was a little disappointed when I realized that the designers assumed teachers would want to build their curricula with ready-made materials... am I off-base?  Is that appealing to anyone?

 

[image credit: thacherschool.org]

Standardization vs. Professionalization

I believe the drama of the current moment in education is a conflict between two opposing forces attempting to take the country's education system in two different directions. 

On one side, you have the movement toward standardization--of curriculum, standards, assessments, teaching methods, and ultimately, students.  On this side, testing is the way forward.  It's a way to apparently control a multitude of factors that affect teaching and learning. It's a way to make teaching a simple matter of learning techniques to get results.  It implies that success looks the same for every child, that we can count on "if...then..."  scenarios to work every time, and that the arts have no value.  

The movement toward standardization means lots of money is needed to fund the creation and administration of more tests, the development of test preparation materials and stronger data tracking systems.  These endeavors add up to a booming industry funded by our tax money.  This movement also means less money and time is needed to prepare, support and retain quality, professional teachers, since most curriculum and assessment decisions are made without teacher input and creativity. 

On the other side, you have a powerful movement working to create a real teaching profession, something we've never really had, due in large part to sexism inherent in the way the teacher's job has historically been structured.  Teachers are taking on more leadership at all levels of the educational system, revealing the complexity of teaching and child development, and bridging the huge divide between the ed policy world and the classroom. Parents are speaking up about the value of their childrens' teachers and the diverse needs of their children. 

Lately there are forceful attempts by the standardization movement to take control of the professionalization of teaching, by defining great teaching as that which causes the greatest rise in student standardized test scores.  Will professionals and taxpayers allow this false idea to guide the education of America's children?  

[image credit: familyplanting.com]

 

Wise and Ethical Responses From Gotham Schools and Inside Schools

After laying into the NY Times, NY Daily News and NY Post for publishing teacher ratings based on sketchy data reports and causing a host of negative effects for teachers, parents, principals, and students, on Friday, I am glad to be able to recognize the thoughtful stance taken by other important NYC education media outlets.  

Gotham Schools, an online news source about NYC public schools with an active community of commenters, originally joined the other journalists in requesting to see the Teacher Data Reports in 2010. But they have chosen not to publish those reports with individual teachers' names attached. 

Here is some of their reasoning behind the choice (full post here): 

"The fact is that we feel a strong responsibility to report on the quality of the work the 80,000 New York City public school teachers do every day. This is a core part of our job and our mission.

But before we publish any piece of information, we always have to ask a question. Does the information we have do a fair job of describing the subject we want to write about? If it doesn’t, is there any additional information — context, anecdotes, quantitative data — that we can provide to paint a fuller picture?

In the case of the Teacher Data Reports, “value-added” assessments of teachers’ effectiveness that were produced in 2009 and 2010 for reading and math teachers in grades 3 to 8, the answer to both those questions was no.

We determined that the data were flawed, that the public might easily be misled by the ratings, and that no amount of context could justify attaching teachers’ names to the statistics. When the city released the reports, we decided, we would write about them, and maybe even release Excel files with names wiped out. But we would not enable our readers to generate lists of the city’s “best” and “worst” teachers or to search for individual teachers at all.

It’s true that the ratings the city is releasing might turn out to be powerful measures of a teacher’s success at helping students learn. The problem lies in that word: might."

 

Inside Schools, an online site providing information and ratings on NYC public schools for parents, has also elected not to include ratings on teachers from the data reports, because, they state, these ratings are not helpful to parents in finding the best schools for their children.  They published a very thoughtful and straightforward explanation for parents of why these ratings "don't tell much."

I found their explanation, by Meredith Kolodner, so helpful even to me, that I am copying it here:

"1. The ratings are based on exams that state officials have said are invalid.

The reports being released are from 2007, 2008 and 2009, before state officials altered exams that they said were not a reliable indication of whether or not students were learning. The exams were only testing a small part of what students were supposed to know, and it was easy to predict what would be on the exam each year. So students who were drilled in a narrow set of skills might do well and their teacher might be rated highly. Teachers who were teaching the whole curriculum and not focused on test prep could be rated lower, even if their children had in fact learned more.

2. Test scores alone don't tell you how effective a teacher is.

The exams don't measure a student's critical thinking skills, creativity or if she works well with others, three things that many of the best teachers emphasize. Although the DOE tried to account for differences in student populations (such as poverty, disability, English language learner), it is not at all clear that they were able to measure all of the differences between classrooms that could affect scores.

3. The margin of error on the ratings is huge.

The DOE admits that a teacher whose rating is 50% (or about average) could actually have a rating as low as 25% or as high as 75%. Even though a teacher is assigned a score, the report includes a range of possible scores because the DOE acknowledges that the reports are imprecise.

4. Teachers of children performing well on the exams could be rated poorly.

The ratings are based partially on student "progress" on the exams. So if students score 3.8 out of 4 one year and then drop to 3.6 the next year, a teacher could be rated ineffective. This is true even though a 3.6 is considered above grade level, and the difference in the score could be a matter of getting one or two questions wrong.

5. The ratings are not stable from year to year.

If the measure was accurate, you would think that a good teacher wouldn't get a 20% one year and an 80% the next. But an Annenberg study found that a third of the English teachers who got the top rating in 2007 sank to the bottom of the pile in 2008. The same was true for 23% of math teachers."

While the NY Times has published many pieces on the various reasons why the data reports are misleading, inaccurate, unhelpful,etc., they still chose to publish them.  They chose to engage teachers in a process of publicly defending themselves against a flawed metric, the effects of which no number of Op-Ed's can undo.  

Thank you to Gotham Schools for your ethical stance on use of this information, and thank you to Inside Schools for focusing on what's actually helpful to students and their families, and for breaking it down so well.

[image credit: infosecisland.com]

 

No Thanks, NY Times, But You Are Welcome to Explain Yourself Here

My colleague, Jose Vilson, has written an important piece entitled, Why The NY Times Is Asking Me To Validate Myself. The NY Times, which is publishing the value added data reports on individual teachers (my commentary is here), has created a means for teachers to explain any special circumstances that affected their value added score.  

They write:

"With SchoolBook’s partners at WNYC, The Times has developed a sophisticated tool to display the ratings in their proper context, a hallmark of our journalism.

But we want to take that a step further, by inviting any teacher who was rated to provide her or his response or explanation. We are seeking those responses now, so they can be published at the same time as the data reports.

If there were special circumstances that compromise the credibility of the numbers in particular cases, we want to know."

Like Jose, I'm really not buying this as a sophistocated tool or an example of good journalism. The NY Times has published pretty extensively about the shortcomings and flaws with the value added measures. Not only would I not know how to explain my score, since I have no involvement with the system or algorithm that created it, the notion that any teacher should feel compelled to explain potentially unseen factors in their students' test scores to the entire world is really shocking and gives me great concern.  

In fact, I urge other teachers not to take up this invitation.  It smells like a trap.  You know when a misbehaving student tries to argue with you in front of the class when you attempt to redirect their behavior?  To divert your attention from the actual desired outcome?  Over time, you learn not to fall for this one, right?

The NY Times' invitation to explain aspects of our work that may or may not have anything to do with a public ranking, which is completely innappropriate and narrow in the first place, seems like a diversion from the real problem here--the undermining of teachers as professionals--and desired outcome--the professionalization of teaching.  Explaining my rating only validates the process of publicly ranking teachers based on standardized test data.  (The analogy only holds for the diversion tactic and the need not to fall for it, not the actual issue. In other words, when students misbehave, I'm not suggesting that they are undermining the teaching profession!) 

Bottom line: I do want to be recognized for the skills I develop as a teacher over time and the impact I have on students. I want to do this based on a meaningful and reliable measure of my impact as a teacher through a process vetted by members of my profession within a professional structure, not the daily paper.  I want this information to be thoughtfully employed in productive ways that will help me and others in the profession continue to grow. 

So, no thanks, NY Times. I will not be explaining anything about my score.  I write every month about my work in teaching.  I invite you, instead, to explain what you hope to accomplish by publicly ranking your city's teachers.  You may use the comments section below. 

 

Booo to the NYCDOE, New York Times, and Others Who Will Publish Teacher Data Reports

Boooo to NYC DOE, NY Times, and all of the other media outlets that will publish value added data reports for NYC teachers, and I don't usually talk like that.    

Bill Gates, who suddenly decided to speak up on the issue, even though he's been a huge part of the development and use of value added data systems across the country, explains the problems with this plan pretty well in his NY Times Op Ed, Shame Is Not the Solution. (Wait, who is this guy, and why should people listen to him now?  Oh yeah, a super rich business man. I guess he has all the cred...)  

Gates' main point is that "we are just beginning to understand what makes a teacher effective." (Who is the "we" here, and effective to what end?)  He argues, "Value-added ratings are one important piece of a complete personnel system. But student test scores alone aren’t a sensitive enough measure to gauge effective teaching, nor are they diagnostic enough to identify areas of improvement. Teaching is multifaceted, complex work," he says. 

The NY Times also explains that there are many issues with the validity and reliability of the data including a huge margin of error, also explained by Jose Vilson here.  Basically VAM's are in an experimental stage. There is nothing tried and true about them, and the standardized tests that VAM's are actually attempting to report on are an extremely narrow and equally flawed measure of student learning. 

Finally, I just don't know what anyone is hoping to accomplish by publishing value added data reports on teachers.  In 2010, when the plan was first introduced and fought, I posted about this, comparing the practice with that of a teacher who fears her students haven't paid enough attention to the lessons, and so she gives the whole class a "Gotcha"-style pop quiz. Though this tactic might ccasionally work to catch some students' attention, it is more about punishment than teaching--more to prove a point than to improve the situation. (Imagine the push-back from students if said teacher then published the pop-quiz scores for the entire school community as definitive measures of students' intelligence).

Is it appropriate to compare the NYCDOE's relationship with NYC teachers and a teacher's relationship with his or her students?  I think so, in the sense that both are in leadership positions. Both the DOE and teachers have a mandate to make leadership decisions that will increase student success rates.

But instead, here's what we will see as a result of the publishing of these reports:

• the creation of unsafe working conditions for teachers (Remember the star teacher in LAUSD, highly valued by his students and community, who committed suicide after his poor VAM's were published).  
• increased incentive to "teach to the test"
• increased risk in doing anything other than teaching to the test
• sadly, as we've seen time and again, increased incentive for cheating on the test
• incentive to leave high need schools, especially those that serve ELL's who have the most unfair burden of taking the same tests in English after just ONE year in the country (this is for shame). Teachers leaving their positions in high need schools will create even less stable conditions where they are most needed
• strong incentive for teachers to teach untested subjects
• possibly increased competition among teachers, since the VAMs rate us in relation to our peers and use a kind of bell curve
• confusion for parents and an awkward range of emotions--while I'd love to see parents across the city advocate for the public education their children need (and some are), I'm not sure how this empowers them.  Most parents I talk to want to see far less testing and more extracurricular activities for their children.  Parents are aware that their children's teachers vary in their skill levels.  In some cases the reported VAM's might match their own impressions of teachers, and in other cases they won't.  So what does a parent do with that information?  I can't see how it's helpful.

These are not positive outcomes for students, the teaching profession, or for parents, at a time where there is, in fact, plenty of forward motion in NYC public schools.  Enough people have spoken up to make that clear.  For shame, NYC DOE.  For shame, NY Times, NY Daily News, and others who will jump at the chance to do something bad just to watch the big splash. 

On Writing & Teaching

I love teaching and I love writing about it, but it's a challenging duality. The biggest challenge is directing my creativity.  My mind is constantly chasing the next creative endeavor.  When I am really in the groove with teaching, my creativity is always in relation to my classroom, my students, and sometimes my teaching team or a school-wide project. 

Any of those ideas can become material for writing, but writing itself needs some space of its own. Like Virginia Woolf argued in A Room of One's Own--a woman cannot be expected to write while she's cooking and taking care of children in a confined space.  Her writing will suffer.  I always hated that point, thinking it was narrowminded, but there was some truth to it.  One needs mental space to bring the ideas out of the working memory and onto the paper. Space to focus on putting the words together. That process requires as much brain-power as creating materials for a lesson or a new seating plan.  It is difficult to occupy both of those thought spaces at once. 

The work of teaching never ends.  Does writing about teaching help me teach better?  And should that matter?  Teachers need to be able to articulate what they are doing in the classroom, why, and how it's working. The National Board Certification Process is based on this kind of reflection.  So yes, writing promotes reflection, which has value for my teaching.  

Also, as a professional, in the still semi-profession that is teaching, it's also important to me to be a part of a dialogue about the work we do and the policies that comment on and affect aspects of teaching. I wish this last part wasn't true. I'm stubborn and don't like to admit that we teachers are usually seen as second class professionals without valuable ideas and valid career goals. The act of participating in dialogue about teaching does make us more professional, but the fact that we must insert our voices into an environment that is so often hostile toward teachers gives the conversation a bitter tinge-- as well as the overwhelming feeling that this conversation too, never ends. 

Finally, as an English teacher, the opportunity to write professionally for a real audience allows me to speak from experience when I teach writing. There are so many benefits to this. One pretty tangible one is that I have lots of first hand experience with all steps of the writing  process, especially revision, which can be hard for kids to understand.  My writing experience has really helped me to be able to teach students to write nonfiction beyond the 5 paragraph essay and to articulate my reasons for this choice.

[image credit: emich.edu]