In case you missed it . . .

PBS' Newshour had a feature on Race to the Top last evening.

Part One --




Part Two --




Here is the first paragraph of John Merrow's Op-ed response to it from his site.

"To understand the Race to the Top, think of Education Secretary Arne Duncan as a diet doctor and public education systems as obese, out of shape individuals in need of a better nutrition program. But here’s the catch: state-controlled school systems are not Secretary Duncan’s children. They are independent adults, and ‘Dr. Duncan’ can’t just order them to eat better and work out regularly. He has to cajole and entice them into behavior that he is certain is in their best interest. And so he’s offering rewards ($4.35 billion) to those who come up with the best ‘diet’ of education reforms."

I don't know how this is all going to pan out. After being in education for 12 years now, I can take more than an educated guess, though.

First, This too shall pass.

Come on. In my short stint I've seen these innovations come and go - outcome based education, grad standards/the profile of learning, NCLB . . .

Second, There's little buy in from teachers.

Despite the EA opposing the move to RTTT our district still signed on. The almighty dollar, right?

Third, Too much to be suspicious about.

If this is such a momumental initiative, then why did the government give us just 60 days to learn about it? Or are they hoping to usher us into something without enough information that will come back to haunt us (such as basing teacher performance on student test scores, getting rid of tenure, shutting down public schools and opening charters . . .)

Now, there are several things about RTTT that I'm anxious for. We need to improve education. I'm not going to deny that for a second. One thing that frustrates me about the union is that they never seem to back any type of change (though they will tell you they do, but I've never seen what that is). I can't say I blame them/us for not signing off of RTTT. There's just too much that is unknown - and they do have to protect their members.

But what about the kids? Who has their best interests in mind?

I'm intrigued by RTTT's four main goals -

1. Higher Standards.

The good news - I agree that students need to be held to higher standards.

The bad news - Are our standards all that bad? Or do we need better teachers who demand more and engage students more often? Or do we need better administators who hold teachers accountable and motivate them to excel? Or do we need better parents who model learning at home and instill a love for learning in their children? Or do we need better students who come to school ready to learn as opposed ready to socialize or drift aimlessly? Or is it all of the above?

Plus, when have you ever head anyone stick up for the standards?

This is one reason I'm suspicious of the call for more testing. When are we ever satisfied with the results? That's the thing - we never will be. Just keep raising the standards because it's what's expected.

It is like when I print out grade reports for students. They - and their parents - don't focus on the final grade or even the current grade. They simply scan columns of assignments, scores, and grades until they spot the one that the student forgot to do or turned in late or just did incorrectly. They jump all over the one "F" on the entire list, totally bypassing the 20 or 30 other assignments all reading "A" or "B."

Why is this? What is the preoccupation with the negative?

2. Transparent Data Systems

The good news - I agree. Tracking student learning is useful. But then let's streamline how we run schools so teachers can really use that information. I've been saying it for years that the NWEA testing we waste so much time on is a collosal waste of time and money. I'd bet 99% of us don't use that information. Not because we don't want to, but it's because of how our block schedule is set up. I've looked at the writing scores of my 9th grade composition students. But I had they left my class after first quarter (late October or early December) and the test is in April and the results usually don't come to us until summer. What good is that information? I won't see that student until they are in my junior English class.

I can say, "Oh look, Johnny scored a 5. I sure taught him well." But that doesn't necessary mean I taught him anything, for there are a few who damn near fail my class and yet do exeptionally well on the writing test or those who do great in the class and yet bomb the writing test. But my class takes into account for real writing skills like revision and drafting and all that good stuff. The test is just one moment in time. Are we to design the whole class for that one moment? I think it's long concluded that teaching for the test is not pedagogically sound, right?

The bad news - All we need is more data. All we need are more people like the lady that kicked off our professional development day. Nice lady - it's just that her message is a bit like trying to treat a gunshot wound to the chest with a bandaid. If our district really wants to get serious about using data and building curriculum - then send the head of each department to a graduate curriculum class at UND and then have them come back and share what they learned. The next year, send volunteers and so on. But let's get serious about fixing the problem and not just making it look like we're making an attempt.

And, I fear, all this talk of data means one thing: more damn tests! Just what every teacher wants to hear.

3. Best Teachers in the Worst Schools.

The good news - Supposedly, Michelle Rhee has research that states if a student has three great teachers in consecutive years, it can completely alter their life trajectory. I don't think there is anyone that will disagree that we should put the best teachers possible in front of our kids. But the education system is not set up that way. For example, a small rural high school needs an English teacher AND a softball coach. A very qualified teacher applies, but has no ability to coach, will they be offered the job over a very average teacher who has the ability to coach? Of course not.

If our country is really serious about putting the best teachers in the worst schools, then they are seriously going to have to tackle school funding and how they pay teachers.

In all seriousness, who would leave a quality school with AP level students to teach in an area of poverty where the students really need them the most? There isn't enough altruism to go around.

The bad news - this seems like a catch-22. If you want to put the 'best' teachers in the worst schools AND if you want to have transparent data systems which are driven by tests (and I believe we were told students would be tested 6 times a year under RTTT), then what happens when a great teacher leaves a very successful school to go to a failing school and when the test scores of the students at the failing school don't go up like they did at the successful school? Will the teacher be held accountable and canned?

This is exactly what happened in Texas (I believe) when a teacher of the year left a very successful school and went to one of the worst. He was fired because his kids' scores didn't go up enough. Who is to blame?

4. Turn around failing schools - this is often known as "The Chicago Plan" where Arne Duncan would shut down schools - fire all involved - then open them up and rehire new staff and faculty.

The good news - Duncan has had success with this.

The bad news - You can't run a school like a business. Businesses control the raw materials. Schools don't. It would be really, really interesting to see under NCLB if some failing schools were actually shut down and then opened again using the business model and if they were successful. I just don't see how it can happen.

Education reform does not need more money. It simply needs money to spent correctly. Or intelligently.

Let's stop wasting money on professional development days that marginally help teachers. Let's stop wasting money bringing in authors and professors from the ed department to give a 30 minute speech to a mass of teachers who know that have to do exactly what the speaker is telling them. Instead, spend the money showing the teachers how to do what the speaker is telling them.

Let's improve teacher education programs. Let's have education classes that focus on pedagogy and not mindless role playing or CPI training or impractical educational theories and psychology.

In other words, let's train teachers the way we train the other professionals in our society (lawyers, doctors, and so on). Then get out of the way and let them do their jobs.