The Tempered Radical

Guaranteed, Quality Professional Development...

The Aspen Institute's report on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind legislation continues to draw significant attention in policy circles. Few would argue its importance and influence as Congress continues to revise a law that has become nothing short of an educational lightening rod.

One of the most interesting proposals in the Institute's report was related to the Highly Qualified Effective Teacher designation that will require teachers to post student gains on standardized tests in the top 75% to avoid "being held accountable" for poor performance. This threat to drum "under performing" teachers out of Title I classrooms is thinly veiled behind a promise for improved professional development:

The new HQET measure will, for the first time, trigger guaranteed, quality professional development for teachers who need it most. Teachers who, after two years, are at risk of not attaining HQET status will receive high-quality professional development specifically designed to address their needs for up to three years. If a teacher after three years of professional development still has not obtained HQET status, principals and school districts that choose to continue to employ such a teacher in a Title I school would be required to notify parents of students taught by these teachers of their HQET status. After this two-year period, if such a teacher has not achieved HQET status, that individual can no longer teach in a school receiving Title I funds.

Initially, I was jazzed to hear that someone was finally advocating for meaningful professional development for educators. Studies have shown time and again that teachers are dissatisfied with both the quantity and quality of professional development available in their schools and communities. Most recently, results from the 2006 North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions survey showed that only 50% of teachers report having sufficient access to funds and resources for taking advantage of professional development opportunities.

Even more interesting is that teachers often have little input in the kinds of professional development opportunities that they are exposed to. In North Carolina, 44% of teachers surveyed reported that they had little to no role at all in determining the kinds of inservice opportunities available to them. This lack of involvement in decision making leads to a misallocation of already limited resources, as professional development opportunities often end up emphasizing areas where teachers report little need for additional support.   

Once I came off of my "High Quality PD High," I realized that the Aspen Institute's proposal had serious flaws. Most importantly, why we are limiting access to "guaranteed, quality professional development" to only 25% of our country's teachers? If the Commission feels strongly enough about the potential of professional development to change the instructional practices of teachers, why not advocate for meaningful professional development for all of our nation's teachers?

I also wonder how a Congress that has failed to fully fund the first iteration of No Child Left Behind will find the resources to support truly meaningful professional development opportunities for teachers. With states already struggling to make up for gaps in federal funding, there is little hope that new programs will receive the support necessary to make them successful. As edublogger Dr. Homeslice writes, "You do realize that this will require more manpower from districts and more resources that will more than likely be unfunded, diverting vital dollars from the front lines of classrooms, don't you?" 

Finally, I worry that "guaranteed, quality professional development" for teachers working in a system that places great emphasis on standardized test scores as a measure of success will be overly simplistic. Scripted curricula and "teaching to the test" have already changed education for the worse. What will our classrooms look like when "professional development" drifts away from meaningful instructional practices towards pre-packaged test preparation programs?

Excuse me for being cynical, but I'm not quite buying this provision of the Aspen proposal yet.   

NBCT Challenges...

I'm looking for a little help from those of you who are NBCTs. I'm writing a piece about National Board Certification that focuses on some of the challenges that NBCTs face after certification.

One of the things that I know that I've faced is that since certifying, I've had any number of opportunities to lead: either by providing professional development, supporting struggling colleagues, mentoring new teachers, or serving on school or district committees.

And what is interesting is that many people expect me to be an expert in all of these areas because of my Board Certification. They assume that because I am a NBCT, I will fill leadership and professional roles without any kind of struggle or challenge. To many, NBCT means more than just accomplished teaching. It means automatic accomplishment in all areas.

But honestly, I'm not accomplished as a professional developer or a "teacher of teachers." Working with other adults is quite different from working with the 12 year olds that roll through my classroom every day...requiring skills that I haven't mastered and that weren't necessarily the focus of my certification portfolio. While I appreciate (and often accept) the opportunities to influence that have come as a result of Board Certification, I wonder if I'm truly qualified some of the roles that I'm asked to fill.

Has anyone else ever felt this disconnect?

I guess I have three questions that I want to focus on in my article:

1. What kinds of roles have you had the opportunity to fill since certifying. Have you struggled with any of these roles despite the expectation that you would succeed? How did you cope with that? What strategies did you use to master the new skills required to succeed in these new roles?

2. Do you think that Board Certification carries an obligation to lead and to teach other teachers? And do we learn skills while working through the certification process that can translate into new roles as professional developers and lead teachers?

And finally:

3. Have any of your schools or districts taken proactive steps to support the professional growth of NBCTs after certification? What have those steps looked like? How can administrators, central office staff members, and other professional organizations help to support NBCTs as they grow as leaders?

Interesting questions, huh?

Looking forward to your responses!

Statistically Snookered....

Here in my hometown, a conservative think tank called The John Locke Foundation often challenges my thinking. The foundation is one of our state's most outspoken critics of public education, and I find myself drawn to their work because it often forces me to refine and revise my own positions on education policy topics ranging from charter schools to standardized testing. 

One of their recent research briefs—written by Terry Stoops and titled Learning About Teacher Pay: N.C. teachers are favorably compensated; what they need is merit-based pay—caught my attention today because it tackled a topic I'm trying to learn more about: How districts can create innovative ways to pay teachers differently. 

It didn't take long, however, to realize that Stoops wasn't interested in abiding by the Locke Foundation's mission of working “for truth, for freedom, and for the future of North Carolina." Instead, he seemed committed to spin and to pushing politics.

What gave it away? His careless use of statistics to "craft" a position and to draw tenuous conclusions. 

Take this assertion, for example, found on page 4: "In addition, states in the region that compete with North Carolina for teachers rank significantly lower in adjusted average compensation. South Carolina is tied for 21st with Alabama, Maryland ranks 30th, Virginia ranks 33rd, and Florida ranks 36th in the final ranking."

Now, a tip I learned long ago from Gerald Bracey's book on educational statistics was to be openly skeptical of rankings.  All too often, the difference between spots on ranking lists can be insignificant and yet seem overwhelming. 

In this case, the difference between North Carolina's rank (19) and South Carolina's rank (21) seems to imply that teachers in North Carolina are compensated far better than teachers in South Carolina. In reality, the difference between the adjusted average compensation of teachers in both states is slightly over $600. That could hardly be considered "significantly lower."

Even more interesting is the complete lack of information in this piece on how merit pay will benefit teachers. Despite its prominent position in the subtitle, merit pay is mentioned first in the closing sentence of the research brief when Stoops writes, "A system of merit-based pay, along with streamlined certification requirements, would provide generous incentives for highly qualified individuals to enter and stay in the teaching profession."

This is another statistical trick: Use seemingly convincing numbers to draw completely unrelated conclusions. 

While the figures that Stoops has collected may show that teacher compensation in North Carolina is comparable to compensation in surrounding states, he fails to prove that this compensation is "favorable" (heck...even uber-conservative, anti-public school critic Jay Greene cited Raleigh-Durham teachers as underpaid compared to other professionals in a recent policy report) or that merit pay is an effective solution to the staffing problems facing our state's classrooms. 

There is also no data included to support his claim that merit pay will "provide generous incentives" that keep teachers in the classroom—outside of one unconvincing quote from another research report referenced in his footnotes: “The fact that the [merit pay] program appears to have reduced departure rates of teachers from the schools serving disadvantaged and low-performing students means that the program could potentially have raised student achievement had it remained in operation for a longer period of time.”

My concern is that conversations in education are increasingly driven by statistical tricks such as these. Advocates on both sides of every issue paint incomplete pictures based on limited evidence that is often biased and unreliable. Few partisans can be trusted, yet the general public is incredibly trusting. 

Is there any hope for unbiased school reform carried out in a spirit of genuine cooperation?

Light on the Carrot....

I was wondering how long it would take for me to write about the upcoming (if you can call 2008 upcoming) Presidential election here on The Tempered Radical. The answer: A painfully long three and a half weeks. 

The drought was broken today when my colleague Scott Emerick at the Center for Teaching Quality drew my attention to this article in the Des Moines Register the other day highlighting a recent speech given by Presidential candidate Barack Obama. In it, Obama made the following comments about teacher salaries:

"I have to say though, there's got to be a bargain with teachers in terms of more pay. They've got to get more pay, but there's also going to be more accountability. Now, the accountability can't just be based on standardized test performance only, but that has to be part of the mix, and there has to be assessment tools that are developed in concert with teachers.

"If teachers are under performing, we're going to get them the help they need. But we're not going to pretend they are not under performing, and that is something we're going to have to make happen."

Obama's comments are long overdue and a refreshing change from the "light on the carrot, heavy on the stick" approach taken towards schools in the past several years. Acknowledging that "accountability" for teachers is far more complex than a number generated by standardized test is a crucial first step towards reintroducing reason into conversations about teaching and learning.

Teachers aren't opposed to accountability. We know how important our successful performance is in the lives of millions. We're just opposed to accountability that overlooks the reality of the classroom—and of the children that we teach. Recognizing that accountability measures need to be developed in concert with accomplished teachers respects the often-overlooked knowledge that practitioners possess.

If Obama is sincere about redefining accountability, then he'll redefine schooling in America.

You've Been You Tubed...

I'm a teacher that is enamored with 21st Century teaching tools. I see great potential in engaging kids as creators of online content and have worked to incorporate podcasting, blogging and wiki work into my classroom.

Recently, I bought two MP3 players with voice recorders that my students can sign out to interview parents or to reflect on current events. I was planning to push this work one step further by having students use their cell phone cameras to design enhanced podcasts that included images, audio and narration on topics of personal interest. 

I paused today, however, after reading about the kinds of extracurricular videos that are appearing online after being recorded in classrooms. Teachers losing their steam and students being bullied have become targets despite district bans of cell phones and social networking sites like My Space and You Tube.  As it turns out, undercover recordings of classroom teachers—like this one, which has been viewed over 200,000 times despite disturbing language—are a dime a dozen on You Tube, filling pages and pages of search results.

What impact do you think videos like these will have on teaching and learning? Will they erode trust between teachers and students—or between classmates?  Will they result in the continued banning of digital tools that have great potential to reinvent America's classrooms?

Commission on No Child Left Behind

My colleague Marsha Ratzel--who I consider to be brilliant--left me the following comment on a recent post on measuring accomplished teaching:

"Bill, I hope you really don't see yourself solely as this number. I am haunted by these numbers myself...wondering how I will ever keep true to what I believe most deeply about being an effective teacher....Who is going to be brave enough to ask their teacher, their school, their district to forgo the numbers in the newspaper in favor of an excellent education? I hope that revolution is coming. The sooner the better."

I really don't see myself as just a score---the contributions that I make in the lives of my students are incredibly complex and varied--but it seems like decision makers continue to move us closer and closer to the point where that is all we're going to be. 

Consider the recommendations released in the recent report of the Commission on No Child Left Behind led by Governor Roy Barnes of Georgia and Tommy Thompson suggesting that teachers and principals should be judged based on their students' test scores. “We believe our recommendations will help improve academic achievement for our nation’s students and, most importantly, quicken the closing of the achievement gap," said Barnes at a news conference announcing the release of the report.

How will educators adjust to working in a world where their effectiveness is determined by test scores?  Will instruction change, drifting away from constructivist learning opportunities that engage children in deep and meaningful exploration of content and becoming more and more focused on the curricular outcomes measured by standardized tests?

Is that a bad thing?

Will the "soft" elements of teaching which are so much a part of what it is that we do each day disappear, making schools cold, mechanical places where inspiration is replaced by mental automation?  Will we continue to see the arts pushed aside by schools unwilling to "waste" time on elective experiences when they are being held accountable for reading and math results alone?

Is that a bad thing?

Will teachers who give passionately of themselves to the lives of their children---those who are remembered for decades--yet don't produce tangible results on standardized tests be chased from our classrooms, replaced by administrators looking only for results?

Is that a bad thing?

I agree with my friend Marsha when she writes:

"I say this and yet I see many good things that the high stakes testing have brought. There is more accountability and widespread attention to curriculum. I have confidence accomplished teachers know how to balance these two opposing needs to the benefit of their students."

Standardized testing has brought a much needed dose of accountability and focus to our classrooms and accomplished teachers can find a balance between these two opposing forces that consume education in today's America.

I'm just not sure that policymakers will give us that opportunity. 

Waiting for Catastrophe...

Ten Question Pop Quiz: 

1. Describe the relationship between the frequency and pitch of sound waves.
2. How do transverse waves differ from longitudinal waves?
3. What is the difference between calories and joules?
4. What are the three different types of predictable wave behaviors, and how are they similar to and different from one another?
5. What was the Zimmerman Telegram and what role did it play in World War One?
6. Name the Peace Treaty that ended World War One and explain the impact that it had on the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany.
7. Who was Spartacus and what impact did he have on the Roman Empire?
8. Who was the Greek God of Fire and Metalwork, and what was his Roman counterpart?
9. Name three different types of bias used by authors to influence opinions and give an example of each.
10. Name five different types of figurative language and give an example of each.

How did you do? 

If you struggled, imagine how the eleven-year olds in my classroom feel.  All of these questions come from tests that we have taken in the past few months—and every time that I teach topics like these, I wonder why. 

Alvin Toeffler, author and digital revolution expert, would describe the kinds of discrete bits of knowledge required to answer the questions above as "obsoledge;" short for obsolete knowledge.  In a recent interview with Edutopia Magazine titled "Future School," Toeffler argues that this kind of learning dominates schools to the detriment of students.  He writes:

"We have this enormous bank of obsolete knowledge in our heads, in our books, and in our culture. When change was slower, obsoledge didn't pile up as quickly. Now, because everything is in rapid change, the amount of obsolete knowledge that we have — and that we teach — is greater and greater and greater. We're drowning in obsolete information. We make big decisions — personal decisions —- based on it, and public and political decisions based on it."

What's even more frustrating is that our assessment systems are becoming increasingly dependent on mastering obsoledge. In our quest to quantify everything in education, we've embraced standardized tests—which are effective, economical and efficient measures of discrete knowledge—as reliable tools for evaluating student achievement and teacher performance.  Portfolios and performance assessments—which would give us a deeper picture of what students know and can do—are too sloppy and expensive.

While few would argue that there are no "basics" that students must master to be fluent adults (I learned that this week when I found out my students didn't know the boiling or freezing point of water off the top of their heads), the costs of an overemphasis on obsoledge are becoming more and more clear each year. Students buried under a pile of trivia fail to develop the thinking skills necessary to navigate a rapidly changing world where success is determined more by one's ability to see connections between topics than by the size of one's mental collection of random facts. 

As Toeffler writes, "Much of what we're transmitting is doomed to obsolescence at a far more rapid rate than ever before...I just feel it's inevitable that there will have to be change. The only question is whether we're going to do it starting now, or whether we're going to wait for catastrophe." 

(Image retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/magazine/ed1article.php?id=Art_1750&issue=feb_07 on February 2, 2007)

Rewarding Accomplished Teachers...

Anyone who has followed my blog for awhile know that I've been struggling lately with my own qualifications to teach. Point blank, I wonder if I'm serving students well.

I think my doubts began back in September when I was given my "effectiveness index" from my assistant principal. This number, ranging from somewhere around -5 to somewhere near +5 is an average of the performance of my students on last year's end-of-grade language arts testing compared to students of the same background. 

A score of 0 represents "average" teaching. While my score--a .02--falls within this average range, it was one of the lowest effectiveness scores on my hallway. I left my assistant principal's office embarrassed that my work hadn't measured up to the work of my peers. To be the "least effective" teacher on my hallway despite working longer hours than anyone was something I could have never imagined. I packed my things and bolted for the door, too ashamed to talk to even my closest friends on the hallway.

As I made my way through the parking lot, a parent waved me down from the carpool lane. "Mr. Ferriter," she said, "I just wanted to stop and thank you for being who you are. As a mom, I send that which is most precious away to school each day for hours and hours. Knowing that he is in your hands gives me a great sense of comfort. 

"He comes home each day and talks non-stop about what he is learning in your classroom. He loves you and is more excited about school than he has ever been before."

Talk about mixed messages, huh?

What's even more interesting is that I would bet that many of my families would choose to have their children in my classroom even if they knew that I had the lowest test scores on our hallway. Parents still seem to value the intangibles that teachers bring to their work each day. The ability to inspire passion, determination and curiosity are seen as equally—if not more—valuable than the ability to produce results on mandated multiple choice exams. Parents are looking for difference-makers—which they define in much broader terms than educational policymakers.

I wonder if those mixed messages are a part of the reason that educators have long been skeptical of merit pay programs like those in the Houston Independent School District, where teachers who produce the highest gains on end-of-grade tests are eligible for bonuses of up to $6,000. 

Houston Superintendent  Abelardo Saavedra took the recognition one step further, describing bonus recipients as "the cream of the crop" and "dedicated." While few would argue that teachers should be held accountable for student learning, measuring that impact based on standardized test scores alone—and defining dedication by numbers only—oversimplifies teaching and learning, which are incredibly complex processes dependent on human interactions. 

Are there any solutions to this disconnect between our well-intentioned desire to reward accomplished educators with additional compensation and our incomplete definitions of "effectiveness?"      

Digital Education and Class...

It seems as if Jane Van Galen and I have been swimming in the same digital soup lately. On her Education and Class blog, she recently wrestled with two topics that drive my thinking often: Introducing students to the tools of the Read/Write Web and addressing the needs of children living in poverty. Van Galen writes:

"As I click through the blogs describing innovative, engaging uses of classroom technology, I can seldom find mention of the kinds of kids present in these classrooms...

Here’s my concern: Web 2.0 could potentially transform the ways that poor and working-class kids think about the boundaries of their social worlds, their potential for developing a public voice, their ability to assume a greater measure of control over the circumstances of their lives.

Or, the innovations happening in only some schools could be yet another means by which the gap between these kids and their more privileged peers deepens, another way in which they come to school already “behind” other kids and with access to fewer resources in school to catch up."

My first reaction to Van Galen's thoughts is that few students of any economic background are engaged in meaningful digital learning opportunities in schools today. Technology applications remain limited and traditional. PowerPoint presentations, word processing and online research continue to dominate classroom computer use even in affluent schools with access to extensive resources. 

Even in communities that have invested heavily in one-to-one laptop initiatives and classroom technology systems that include interactive whiteboards and student response systems, instructional practices haven't significantly changed. Districts over-invest in hardware and software suites and under-invest in teacher professional development. We end up with what Mark Prensky describes as teachers doing "old things in new ways," instead of doing "new things in new ways."

But I also recognize that in the affluent school where I work, there is less pressure from outside "forces" bent on driving the curricular decisions of teachers. Instead of being forced to adopt scripted instructional programs that are closely monitored and supervised, teachers in my building still have the freedom to experiment, trying instructional practices that haven't been "approved for use" by decision makers far removed from the classroom. 

I imagine that external forces can act as handcuffs for teachers in low performing schools, limiting their ability to introduce the collaborative tools of the Read/Write Web to their students. When your school is facing state takeover or public ridicule because "student achievement" (read: standardized test scores) haven't met expectations, innovation is replaced by "research based" instructional practices (read: test preparation materials) chosen for their effectiveness at producing "results" (read: great multiple choice test takers).

What makes this reality even more frustrating is that children in high needs schools are far more likely to depend on teachers for exposure to technology. Personal computers and high speed Internet access are givens for the families that I serve, but are often cherished resources for children in many rural and urban communities. The technological experimentation that my students do at home—compensating for a lack of innovation in their classrooms—has to be introduced in high poverty schools in order to ensure that all students enter the 21st Century on a level playing field.   

That's why I was so jazzed to find out about the 21st Century Learning Project of the Alabama Best Practices Center. Working to introduce blogging, podcasting and wikis to several high needs schools, the Best Practices Center has continued its long history of driving meaningful change in education.  While these efforts (supported by a two-year Microsoft grant) continue to develop, the promise is clear in the work of the students at George Hall Elementary School, who are using WetPaint to create a schoolwide wiki/blog/podcast program documenting classroom field trips and learning experiences. 

It is also evident in the work of the students in Mr. Frazier's class at Hueytown Elementary School who are beginning to interact in a digital environment, leaving comments for one another in response to prompts on their classroom blog, and in Mrs. Carroll's class at West Blocton Elementary outside of Birmingham, where first graders are beginning to make their own blog posts, learning valuable lessons about the power of becoming creators of online content. Finally, it is evident in the developing wiki covering a range of classroom topics being created by students in Mrs. Barnett's class at Fayetteville High School in Talladega County.

Teachers in each of these high-needs schools have accepted the responsibility of truly preparing their students for life in tomorrow's world.  They've adopted Web 2.0 tools as effective "content delivery systems" (a term borrowed from my friend and colleague Sheryl Nussbaum Beach, lead consultant to the ABPC project), addressing required curriculum objectives and motivating students at the same time.  Their efforts are at once admirable and essential, serving as models of what technology integration should look like in any community.

 

An Inconvenient Truth...

With a new report being released by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--an organization of scientists from 130 nations around the world--the debate over man's role in the warming of our planet is over.

Based on the best peer reviewed studies available, scientists report that the likelihood that human actions have sped up global warming is greater than 90 percent. These results shouldn't surprise us. As far back as 2002, even the pro-industry administration of George Bush admitted man was responsible for climate change here on earth. 

That's what makes the decision of the Federal Way, Washington's school board so remarkable.  They've restricted the showing of Al Gore's Oscar nominated documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, forcing teachers interested in showing the video to receive permission from their building principal and requiring that any showing be "balanced with an adequate opposing viewpoint." 

As board member Dave Larson says, "We have to ensure that our schools are not being used to politically indoctrinate anyone."

What's ironic in this entire conversation is that none of the board members have ever seen Gore's documentary and the "concerns of the community" used as reasoning for the decision boiled down to "about a half-dozen complaints from parents" in a district of over 20,000 students. 

To restrict teachers from showing a well-made, factually supported and widely respected video introducing a challenging topic in an approachable way created by a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize is unfortunate. As a science teacher required to cover the impact of human actions on the environment, I have found no better resource.

To suggest that teachers are using that same video to politically "indoctrinate" students borders on the hysterical. I've often heard conservative critics of education claim that there is a broad liberal conspiracy in public schools and am offended every time. Honestly, I don't have the time for indoctrination—unless that includes drill and kill activities necessary to prepare my kids for standardized testing. 

But to make all of these decisions based on the complaints of a handful of parents without ever taking the time to view the video in question is nothing short of horribly irresponsible. Perhaps the Inconvenient Truth is that the decisions made by school boards like those in Federal Way are far more politically driven than they care to admit.