The Principal Difference: A School Leadership Blog by Mel Riddile

Upgraded Blog: New Look and Feel

Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:17:32 -0500

We have recently taken on a redesign of the Principal Difference blog and are pleased to unveil the new look and feel: http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference1/.

If you subscribed to this blog via e-mail or RSS feed, you will need to update which can easily be done on the new layout by navigating to the right hand navigation panel and scrolling until you see the "Subscribe" box. Thank you for your continued support.

Improving education requires positive thinking

Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:56:58 -0500

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Mel Riddile has recently written about a venture by a group of individuals to form The Fairfax Leadership Academy, a charter school in the affluent Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) system in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C. I wholeheartedly agreed with his strong support of this endeavor. But not everyone is equally supportive. In a recent article in the Washington Post Jay Mathews’ response to the proposal is unnecessarily negative and dismissive. It undermines unfairly a plan that deserves serious consideration.

In the interest of full disclosure

Last spring Eric Welch asked me to serve as a member of the board of directors of the Fairfax Leadership Academy. Since I live 3,000 miles away and am retired as a teacher, my involvement is far more advisory than hands-on, day-to-day participation. My role has been limited to advice on the math program, bell schedules and the evaluation process. I will never teach at the school, profit from the school or perhaps even visit the school. But I do know the individuals involved in the planning and have been able to observe the steps they have taken to have their vision become a reality. Thus, I see myself as being in a uniquely knowledgeable and somewhat objective position to discuss the merits of the Academy.

Why so negative?

In his initial paragraph concerning the proposed charter school Mr. Mathews says:

“Welcome to Fantasyland. Eric Welch just sent me a detailed plan for a public charter school in Fairfax County. He and several other people on the board of what they call the Fairfax Leadership Academy say they want to help low-income families with a school unlike any that local students have had before.”

After describing the group as “deluded” Mr. Mathews assesses their approach to gaining approval as:

“Organizers are trying to win School Board approval by groveling. Their written materials remind me of my graduate school days, reading 14th-century appeals to the Chinese emperor. ‘We recognize the merits of the current public schools in Fairfax County and do not enter this venture with any notion of trying to undermine the success of a great school system,’ they say. ‘Rather, our intention is to provide an educational program with a unique structure that will enhance the system’s ability to serve all of its students.’”

He offers their efforts a “Nice try” and a warning.

“There have never been any public charter schools in Fairfax County. There are no public charter schools anywhere in Northern Virginia. Every attempt to create one of those independently run public schools has died. Virginia law gives local school boards the power to veto charters in their territory.”

A very different perspective

It is historically accurate to say there has never been a charter school in FCPS. Of course, it would have been equally correct to say on December 16, 1903 that no man had ever flown and on July 19, 1969 no one had ever landed on the moon. While the Fairfax Leadership Academy is hardly in the category of flight or space exploration, the fact that it would be the first school of its kind in FCPS is hardly a reason to dismiss it with words like “Fantasy Land”, “deluded” and “grovel”.

This charter school is a legitimate and reasonable possibility. The people spearheading this proposal have the perfect combination of talent, experience, confidence, work ethic, wisdom and realism to create not only the first charter school in that district, but a successful one. They have worked with at-risk populations and know what methods will translate into academic success. Their commitment is enormous. Most have maintained full-time jobs while being on call virtually 24/7 to do whatever is necessary to push this Academy forward. As Mel Riddile has stated, the underpinnings of their vision of a school for underserved students is the perfect confluence of realism and idealism. They want to provide more time for students by expanding the school day and the length of the year. They will incorporate the best practices of AVID (Advancement through Individual Determination) and the International Baccalaureate Program. For the teaching staff there will be an improved collaborative evaluation process that will not only assess the talents of the faculty but improve them as well.

Eric Welch and his fellow board members have not taken any shortcuts in the pursuit of their school. They have spoken to members of the School Board, community, political leaders and colleagues. When they have been given suggestions for improvement they have made the necessary adjustments.

More than a single new school

The importance of this conversation is not the specific proposed charter school. It is a discussion of what needs to be done to improve education. People like Eric Welch and his colleagues who possess a clear vision for the steps required to improve learning should be encouraged - not dismissed or ridiculed. There is certainly no guarantee that the concept of the Fairfax Leadership Academy will attain its stated goals. Such an evaluation can only be made after a significant period of time. What is undeniable is that progress toward creating better schools will only occur when new ideas are fully explored.

Improving academic achievement is similar to refining a scientific theory. It should be a slow, methodical process whereby every step is measured, evaluated and refined. The Fairfax Leadership Academy and other innovative schools offer the opportunity for this kind of research. Negative and derogatory comments are of no value in this critical dialogue.

Teacher to Teacher: When Adults Cheat, Children Lose

Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:04:44 -0500

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Cheating in education appears to be rapidly reaching epidemic proportions. It is both expanding in scope and escalating in its prevalence. The most recent high profile scandal was highlighted in a post by Mel Riddile. The outlines of the story are simple—six high school students paid a 19-year-old college sophomore $2,500 each to have him take their SAT exams at a variety of locations.

Other high profile school cheating scandals have been in the news for months. It was revealed that in Atlanta large groups of teachers and administrators changed student answer sheets on standardized tests to improve the scores of test-takers in elementary and middle schools.

“A July 5 report released by Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal showed officials at nearly 80 percent of 56 Atlanta elementary and middle schools examined cheated on annual student-performance tests, called Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests.”

And the incident in Georgia is merely the tip of the malpractice iceberg. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

“The Atlanta cheating scandal also offers the first most comprehensive view yet into a growing number of teacher-cheating allegations across the US, reports of which reached a rate of two to three a week in June, says Robert Schaeffer, a spokesman for the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, which advocates against high-stakes testing.

“Former Superintendent Dr. Beverly Hall, who retired last month as head of the 48,000-student district, is accused of creating a culture of fear, pressuring faculty and administrators into accepting ever-increasing targets of achievement and turning a blind eye to the way those goals were achieved.”

The easy way out

Ask the cheaters why they did it and the answers are remarkably alike--the pressures are just too great for them to remain honest. The teachers cheat because the administrators told them to do it. The administrators cheat because the Superintendent demanded unrealistically high scores. The students cheat because getting into the right college is too competitive. They are not really guilty, pressures made them do it.

From the perspective of someone who spent several decades in the classroom, the involvement of teachers in such activities is indefensible. This should not be about finding ways to avoid accountability; it should be a question about the core responsibilities of an educator. A counterfeit higher score for an elementary or middle school student may result in a school or a teacher gaining temporary success but is that really what matters? A student whose results do not accurately reflect their skill level will be robbed of the remedial work necessary to achieve in later years. What are these adults thinking? How can administrators convince teachers to willingly participate in such a plan?

Taking a long hard look in the mirror

It is time to stop making excuses and to start facing reality. The responsibility for all of these illegal activities rests squarely on the adults. A culture of cheating has been clearly established in this country. There are steroids that enhance performance in baseball, mortgages that are rigged to fail, college athletes who receive under the table payments, and elections that are won on bogus “facts”. In not one of these examples have there been significant penalties. Steroid users are still playing ball; lending institutions are bailed out; Cam Newton wins a national championship and millions of NFL dollars, and no one on Wall Street goes to jail.

Education is no better. The Atlanta Superintendent is earning a nice pension in retirement. The former chairman of their school board has moved to Newark to work with the $100 million FaceBook grant. As Mel Riddile relates “There is no consequence for cheaters. The (SAT) tests are simply removed. Neither colleges nor high schools are ever alerted that cheating was suspected.” Stopping such behavior is not aggressively addressed. “Students are not required to take the test at their own school. School officials do not receive a list of test takers ahead of time, which some believe would improve security.”

There are clearly adult fingerprints on all of the cheating scandals. How do high school students pay $2,500 to an imposter without raising suspicions at home? That sum would hardly seem to be in the realm of “allowance” money. And it was the teachers and administrators who altered the students’ tests in Atlanta.

The people in charge of education are failing at virtually every turn. Only 20 states have set aside funds to investigate suspicious erasures on standardized tests. Sixty percent of the country will not dedicate the funds necessary to discover dishonesty. Crucial tests are written in multiple-choice formats because they are cheaper to write and grade. Such questions are also most susceptible to cheating but that is not enough of a concern to invest the funds necessary for creating more secure tests. While the message educators always send is clearly that cheating is wrong and unacceptable, the actions taken do not match the rhetoric.

Education has been entrusted with the heavy responsibility of preparing the next generation to move into leadership roles in our country. Implementing instruction that will give our students the skills to read, write, calculate and reflect are important. But we must also set a standard of integrity. Honesty is a virtue that needs to be valued and nurtured. Cheating is always wrong and should never be tolerated. No excuses allowed.

Charter School: A Possible Dream

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:03 -0500

"A dozen experienced Fairfax educators and a state delegate have proposed the Fairfax Leadership Academy; could a charter school in Fairfax actually happen?"--Jay Mathews

Jay Mathews' skepticism may be just the kind of reverse psychology needed to earn approval for the first public charter in Fairfax County (VA), an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C.

I know Jay and he has a passion for schools that serve the under-served and under-resourced students that the Fairfax Leadership Academy targets.

A few years ago, we would have referred to the Fairfax Leadership Academy as an "alternative school." Today, we call it a public charter school. If nationally renowned Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (VA) opened today, it would open as a charter school.

I am not a fan of any school that controls the admission and withdrawal of students, skims off the best students, gets rid of low-performers, and then compares its students performance to neighborhood public schools, who serve anyone who shows up at their door. According to the staff, the Fairfax Leadership Academy will take applications, but will only "screen" on the basis of potential transportation issues. After all, this school will be located in the middle of the most congested traffic area in the country, and they don't want students who have to 90-minute commutes each way. It just won't work.

A Proven Formula

Those active in starting this Academy know exactly what they are getting into. They know full well that they will work longer and harder than their colleagues in more resourced schools. They have a proven track record of working with under-served, under-resourced students in what National Geographic Magazine called "the most diverse high school in America." Their school, J.E.B. Stuart High School, was a "national model" for excellence winning recognition as "Model School," a "Breakthrough School," and winning the International Baccalaureate's first Inspiration Award.

Recipe for Success

The Fairfax Leadership will employ best practices that have been proven to level the playing field of under-resourced students, which will dramatically increase the number of students who graduate college and career-ready including:

Small Learning Communities - 75 students in each grade level
Increased learning time - A longer school day and a longer school year equivalent to 55 more days in a school year.
AVID - Advancement through Individual Determination will provide the additional support that these students need in order to handle rigorous college and career prep program
International Baccalaureate Program
Service Learning - Each student will be required to complete a community service requirement.
Collaboration among the staff will shared decision-making and distributed leadership.

The Bottom Line

When Albert Shanker first talked about charter schools, he envisioned a school like the Fairfax Leadership Academy--a school that serves the under-served and one that acts as a laboratory for best practices.

Apples and Oranges: Problems with the PSAT and National Merit program

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:45:36 -0500

"To qualify for a national merit scholarship, students in different states have to take the same exam, but they don’t have to get the same scores to win."--Valerie Strauss

We know that it is impossible to compare schools and students in different states based on the results on state tests. For example, the highest performing district in one state had 67% of its student score at "proficient" or above, while one of the schools in another state identified for SIG funds as a "low-performing" school had 82% of its students score at "proficient" or above in reading. In another example, one of the lowest performing high schools in one state, would be among the top performing high schools in ten states.

Now we learn that we also cannot compare National Merit Scholars in different states.

Here are the highlights of Valerie Strauss' piece in the Washington Post, which I have filtered for review by busy school leaders:

3.5 million high school students take the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) as a preparation for the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).
In addition to serving as a practice test and indicator of college readiness, the PSAT is also used as the qualifier for the prestigious National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test.
"About 50,000 students qualify based on their PSAT scores, and that number is whittled down to about 16,000, who become semifinalists (the 34,000 others get letters of commendation). About 8,500 are named finalists, eligible for a scholarship of varying amounts, based on test scores as well as other criteria including academic performance."
However, "the initial cutoff scores separating the possible winners from the definite losers are not the same in each state."
"Students can wind up winning with lower scores than students who didn’t make the cut in their state." For this reason, the University of California system decided to stop funding National Merit Scholarships in favor of other "merit-based" scholarships.
States With Highest Cut Scores: D.C. New Jersey, and Massachusetts
States With Lowest Cut Scores: North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming
National Merit Scholars can live in one state, but go to school in another. The state where the school is located gets the credit. For example, "National Merit winners in the past who have been listed as coming from Washington D.C. go to private schools in the city, but live in Maryland or Virginia."

Cutoff Scores by State

"An unofficial list of cut scores for the class of 2012 assembled by the Web site College Planning Simplified, which provides free college planning advice, shows these."

Alabama 211 

Alaska 212 

Arizona 213 

Arkansas 205 

California 221 

Colorado 215 

Connecticut 220 

Delaware 217 

District of Columbia 223 

Florida 214 

Georgia 218 

Hawaii 216 

Idaho 211 

Illinois 216 

Indiana 214 

Iowa 210 

Kansas 214 

Kentucky 212 

Louisiana 209 

Maine 212 

Maryland 221 

Massachusetts 223 

Michigan 210 

Minnesota 215 

Mississippi 205 

Missouri 213 

Montana 209 

Nebraska 209 

Nevada 209 

New Hampshire 216 

New Jersey 223 

New Mexico 210 

New York 219 

North Carolina 217 

North Dakota 204 

Ohio 214 

Oklahoma 209 

Oregon 216 

Pennsylvania 215 

Rhode Island 213 

South Carolina 211 

South Dakota 206 

Tennessee 214 

Texas 219 

Utah 208 

Vermont 217 

Virginia 220 

Washington 220 

West Virginia 204 

Wisconsin 209 

Wyoming 204

ESEA Draft: "focus on teaching and learning, not testing and sanctioning."

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:35:37 -0500

The following highlights are filtered for the convenience of school leaders.

These are highlights of a draft re-authorization proposal released on October 11, 2011 by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee as reported in Education Week by Alyson Kline.

No AYP - Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP is eliminated.

No Achievement Targets - There would be no specific achievement targets, either for entire groups of students, or for particular subgroups, such as minority students, English-language learners, or students with disabilities.

Continuous Improvement - States would have to ensure that all students are making "continuous improvement" in student outcomes.

Intervention - States would decide how—and whether—to intervene in schools.

Continue the following initiatives: the Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhood programs

Testing remains in place, but eliminate the 2013-14 deadline for bringing all students to proficiency in math and reading.

Teacher Evaluation - States will be required to develop new teacher evaluation systems and teacher and principal evaluation systems based on multiple factors, including student achievement and classroom observations.

"Value-added" no longer a requirement - Evaluations would not need to incorporate "value-added" testing, but states would need to have at least four levels of ratings.
Not in personnel decisions - Schools would have to use the evaluations to inform professional development, but not necessarily to help make personnel decisions. That would be a shift from the administration's waiver package, which specifies that evaluations have to be used for personnel purposes, although the waiver guidance is silent about whether that would specifically entail hiring, firing, and pay bonuses.

Low Performing Schools

Bottom 5% - States also would be required to identify the 5 percent of lowest-performing high schools, as well as elementary and middle schools. The interventions would be similar to the four options spelled out it in the regulations for the School Improvement Grant program. And under the "restart" option, a school could choose to convert to a charter school or become a magnet school.
Dropout Factories Targeted - There would be more intensive interventions for those schools, as well as for so-called "dropout factories"—high schools with graduation rates below 60 percent.
35% of Teachers Replaced - There would be some changes and some additional options. For instance, under the strategy known as "turnaround" schools could keep 65 percent of their teachers on the job (right now, it's 50 percent).
Achievement Gaps - States also would have to identify the 5 percent of schools with the biggest achievement gaps between subgroup students and other students, and develop a plan for addressing the problem. Districts with achievement gap schools that aren't able to close their gaps would lose the ability to get a leg-up in federal funding competitions.
"Whole School Turnaround" option - Schools also would be permitted to employ a "whole school" turnaround. They would have to partner with an organization that has a proven track record of success, as demonstrated by rigorous research, according to a committee aide.

Common Core State Standards

States will be required to set college- and career-readiness standards, either with other states or alone.
The adoption of the standards shifts the role of the federal government into "partnership with states."
The Standards "take away the need or achievement targets because CCSSO has agreed to adopt "performance goals."

Change of Focus

Sen. Harkin said the strength of the bill was that it "focuses on teaching and learning, not testing and sanctioning."

Tracking: Pros and Cons

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:07:02 -0500

What are the pros and cons of tracking? That's a question that I am frequently asked as I work with school leaders around the country. Instead of answering the question, I ask them a question in return. What do you mean by tracking? Instead of an immediate reply, I invariably get a confused look?

What is tracking?

There are several different forms of grouping, also known as tracking or leveling:

"Within-class ability grouping" is typically found in elementary schools and not in high schools. One example might be multi-level reading groups.
"Between-class grouping" - Students spend most of the day in “high,” “middle,” or “low” classes and use the same or similar curricula supported by the same set of standards. Schools often refer to these between-class groupings as "advanced" and "standard" courses.
"Formal Tracks or Levels" - Students spend most of the day in ability tracks and use curricula substantially adjusted to their ability levels which are often supported by a differing set of standards and expectations.

Many schools and school systems have already or are actively eliminating the third form of grouping students, a system of "formal tracks or levels," because research has shown that this form of grouping actually harms poor, disadvantaged, under-resourced, and struggling learners.

The second method of grouping students--"between class grouping" has been shown to benefit high-achievers but does not have a negative impact on the performance of low-achievers.

My Take On Grouping

I favor an approach that provides two groupings--standard and advanced. Within those two general groupings, schools should provide tiered interventions, which provide additional learning time and support to ensure student mastery of course content. For example, students enrolled in an "advanced" AP course may need additional learning time in the form of after-school tutoring or additional review sessions (tier 2) in order to master course content. Likewise, students in standard English 9 may need additional after-school tutoring or review (tier 2), while some students may need a reading course (tier 3) in addition to their English class.

Students should be able to self-select into standard or advanced courses. In other words, enrollment in advanced or standard courses should be open to all students based on their identified strengths and weaknesses as well as their interests and motivation. For example, a student could be enrolled in and AP English class, but in a standard Algebra II course.

Courses that fall under the "advanced" label could include courses specifically labeled on a local level as "advanced." These advanced courses might include Advanced Algebra I, pre-IB, pre-AP, or Honors. The "gold standard" of advanced courses is the externally moderated courses such as ACT Quality Core, University of Cambridge International Examinations, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate.

Locally labeled advanced courses should never be offered in competition with externally moderated courses. For example, a high school should never offer an Honors Senior English in competition with AP or IB English.

Why not offer locally labeled honors courses in competition with externally moderated advanced courses?

First, most locally labeled advanced courses are not monitored. They are honors in name only. In some cases, these so-called honors courses are merely a way to segregate students because their parents don't want them in classrooms with "those kids." The teacher generally decides the curricula in these locally labeled advanced courses, and there is little or no consistency from classroom to classroom, from teacher to teacher, or from school to school. Unless there is a defined curriculum, accompanied by common formative and summative assessments, there is no way to ensure that honors courses are any more rigorous than standard courses.

Second, advanced courses are offered for advanced, college-bound students. Some parents may complain that externally moderated, AP or IB, courses are too difficult for their child. Allowing students to choose the less rigorous honors course instead of an AP or IB course deludes parents into believing that we are preparing their child for college when we know that all we are doing is placating them and their child. If a student is college-bound, why wouldn't that student be enrolled in the externally moderated course.

Third, generally speaking most AP and IB courses proceed at half the speed of a college course. What takes a year of high school to complete would be undertaken in one semester in college. True, some colleges award more than one 3-hour credit for some AP science courses. Likewise, universities frequently require additional lab time in science courses and they provide additional credit hours for successful completion of that science course and lab. Here is the essential question. If students cannot succeed in a half-speed course in high school, how will they handle a full-speed course only a few months later in college?

The Bottom Line

Schools need to "push" students to take a rigorous course of study that prepares them to be college and career-ready.
Labeling courses as advanced to placate parents is tantamount to malpractice.
Offering honors courses as an alternative to AP or IB courses at the junior and senior level is a big lie. In no way are honors courses preparing students to do college-level work. The only way that I would agree to such a proposal is that these courses were externally moderated. They would have a standard course description and syllabus with accompanying district-wide common and formative assessments, which would make the whole idea very expensive.
If we really have the best interests of our students in mind, we would ensure that they were adequately prepared to succeed in the most rigorous course that we could offer them.
Finally, the Common Core State Standards and the accompanying assessments renders "formal tracks or levels," all but obsolete. The adoption of the Common Core State Standards means just that. We now have one common set of standards, which prepare all students to be college and career-ready, and which all students are expected to meet before leaving high school.

Poverty: Schools Cannot Ignore Its Impact and Improve

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:42:28 -0500

In "It's Poverty, Not Stupid" I proved that we should seek to raise the achievement of all students, but that our national focus should be on our poorest, under-resourced schools and students, who are the reason for our "average" international ranking.

The following post includes excerpts from an article by Marcus Pohlman in the Washington Post and by my personal experiences leading two high-poverty schools:

"Those who believe that “great teaching” alone can overcome the effects of living in poverty are underestimating the toll that difficult home lives have on children."

Q: Why do school reformers ignore poverty?

A: If they acknowledge poverty as a factor...

1. They have no one to blame.
2. They themselves might have to take action instead of standing on the sidelines.

"Some school reformers are fond of saying that “great teaching” can overcome the effects of living poverty on children, and that those people (me included) who insist that poverty matters are only supporting the status quo."

Q: What are the affects of poverty on children?

A: Poverty does nothing to help and everything to undermine a child's education:

1. Focus - When survival and finding something to eat become the focus of a child's life, education takes a back seat.
2. Stress - Money problems increase family stress.
3. Hunger - Students come to school hungry and some don't eat from Friday, when they leave school, until Monday, when they return.
4. Health- Poverty leads to poor nutrition and medical care. As a principal, our staff spent a considerable amount of time obtaining eyeglasses and hearing aids for our indigent students.
5. Literacy - Children living in poverty are talked to less and end up with vocabularies that are about half that of middle-class children.
"Research suggests that the first years shape a child’s capacity to learn. Science tells us that it is essential to brain development that babies are spoken to, read to, cuddled, and allowed to engage in physical play. National Institute of Health studies have indicated the foundations necessary for higher learning — working memory, vocabulary, spatial recognition, reasoning, and calculation skills — are set by the time a child reaches puberty."
6. Mobility and Instability - "Children in poverty move from place to place, often several times in a year. Children “churn,” which means they start at a certain school but will not be there by year’s end.
7. Lack basic necessities - Under-resourced children are just that, under-resourcesd. They come to school unbathed, inadequately clothed, and without books and supplies.
8. No support system - Frequently, one parent is absent either incarcerated, or otherwise not present. Many under-resourced children are "raised by aunts barely out of their teens, or grandmothers who have watched a family disintegrate from a collective inability to fight the powerful currents of poverty."
9. 9% solution - "Through the 18th birthday, the average child will spend less than 9 percent of life in school. That leaves most education occurring outside the schoolhouse. A poll of kindergarten teachers showed that their classrooms would improve if all families had access to quality pre-kindergarten programs."

Strategies

While educators cannot cure poverty, we can recommend strategies that will create a level playing field so that under-resourced students are provided the resources they need to bring them up to par with their middle class counterparts.

1. Early Childhood Education - If we know that children in poverty will arrive at school two to three years behind, why do we wait for the train wreck? "The bipartisan New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce has recommended that public education begin at age 3 for American students. And studies show that the best early childhood programs are staffed by teachers with college degrees and early education certification, offer developmentally appropriate education, include a focus on language development and comprehensive services such as meals and health and developmental screenings and encourage parental involvement."

2. Best Teachers and Principals - Provide incentives for teachers and principals to work in under-resourced schools. The current strategy of "blame and punish" only serves to drive out the most qualified.

3. Funding - Finally, we must acknowledge that it simply costs more to educate some students. We already admit that it costs more to educate special needs and language-learners, why not poor students?

4. Literacy - Reading and writing skills are the great equalizers helping under-resourced students achieve at middle class levels. We know that poor children lack literacy skills, and, therefore, we must provide direct, explicit literacy instruction beginning the day they first arrive at school and every day thereafter.

5. Time - In order to level the playing field, we must provide under-resourced students more time to learn. It's not about ability. These students don't lack ability. They lack resources and supports. Time is the key. If we hold learning time constant, student achievement looks like a bell curve. We need to provide longer school years, after school tutoring and tiered interventions for all students but particularly for children living in poverty.

Common Core Math Standards: What school leaders need to know

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:09:03 -0500

The following highlights are filtered for school leaders and were excerpted from Rick Hess' interview with Hung-Hsi Wu in Education Week.

Background: Hung-Hsi Wu is professor emeritus in mathematics from UC-Berkeley, who has just penned the cover story on this topic for AFT's magazine American Educator. Dr. Wu, who started teaching at Berkeley in 1973, has been actively involved in math education for the past two decades, helping write California's 1999 Mathematics Framework and California's Standards Tests. He was also a member of NAEP's Mathematics Steering Committee, 2000-2001, that contributed to the revision of the NAEP Framework.

CCSS math standards: What are they? Why do we need them?

The Common Core math standards place great emphasis on mathematical integrity, [in other words] the statements of the standards are mathematically correct and the progression from topic to topic is logical. In this regard, it is at least comparable to the best state standards, such as those of California and Massachusetts.

The Common Core math standards, however, ask that students "understand solving equations as a process of reasoning" and say explicitly what needs to be taught about this process (see Standard A-REI 1 in High School Algebra).

When state standards ask that the concept of congruence be taught in middle school, they do not realize that what students will end up getting is that congruence means same size and same shape. As a mathematical definition, the latter is completely unacceptable. By contrast, the Common Core standards explain that congruence means what one gets by a sequence of rotations, reflections, and translations (grade 8, Standard 8.G 2). Such sensitivity to the existing defects is absolutely essential to any meaningful improvement in our math education; in this regard, the Common Core standards leave all rivals far behind.

Integrated vs. Traditional Math

The 9-12 standards of the Common Core are what they are because the Common Core made a conscientious decision to stay neutral in this debate by describing only the mathematical content of the various strands in high school and allow[ing] each state to make its own decision. This flexibility makes it possible to formulate a high school program that conforms to neither the traditional nor the integrated format.

Algebra I in 8th Grade?

There is no intrinsic merit in finishing Algebra I by grade 8. When it comes to school algebra, it is not how early you teach it but, rather, how well you teach it. The standards of those states in the U.S. that mandate the completion of Algebra I in grade 8 manage to do so only by stinting on the necessary background material that students need in order to learn linear equations and their graphs. Furthermore, the math standards of both China and Japan postpone the teaching of quadratic equations and functions to grade 9, and these are two of the highest-achieving nations in the world in math education.

Spread Concepts Across Grade Levels

Common Core math standards' are designed to optimize mathematics learning by giving students enough time, whenever feasible, to absorb the material as well as time for teachers to teach the material. For children, the addition of fractions is so conceptually complicated that they need the time to internalize the whole process. This particular treatment of fraction addition (teaching of fraction addition over three grades: grades 3 to 5) is one of the outstanding features of the Common Core standards.

Strengths of Common Core math standards:

The math standards provide guidance to the teaching [of] fractions in a way that is pedagogically sensible and mathematically correct. Since the fear of fractions has almost become a national pastime, these standards---if properly implemented--- will bring relief to many parents and students.
The same can be said about these standards on negative numbers.
The teaching of geometry in middle and high schools is so defective at present that it cries out for a new approach; essentially nothing can make things worse in most cases - provide a seamless transition from middle school geometry to algebra and high school geometry.

Teacher Capacity and Preparation

We need better teacher preparation and improved professional development in order to stay educationally afloat no matter what the standards may be. If we cannot get better teacher preparation or improved professional development, then we would be better off with a set of standards that is at least mathematically sound.

Help for Teachers: Resources

A set of Progressions documents that highlight the main ideas of each major strand in the standards.
The Illustrative Mathematics Project that will provide problems to illustrate the standards.

Concern - Status Quo Not Good Enough

What I find most worrisome is the fact that many educators and administrators believe that the status quo (of doing nothing) is plenty good enough. It is not. We need effective professional development, period.

Math Assessments

I want to make sure that students will not be in any way over-assessed, and that the mathematical quality of the test items be above reproach.

CCSS: In the final analysis, Good or Bad?

Nobody can pass judgment on the success or failure within a year of the kind of profound change promulgated by the Common Core math Standards unless the standards are an immediate disaster (which I hope they are not).

I think a more reasonable date to make such a judgment is 2017. If things go well, teacher preparation will begin to concentrate on the most urgent need of the moment: better content knowledge. Math instruction in classrooms will be long on reasoning and short on giving out orders, and textbooks will at least be free of ghastly errors.

World Teacher's Day: Build In or Inspect Out

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:26:22 -0500

Our current national obsession or "silver bullet de jour" is evaluation; specifically teacher and principal evaluation. Let us be clear. The motivation behind this obsession is about developing a system designed to get rid of ten percent of the "worst teachers." This is not about improving teacher quality, but it should be.

Truth be told, we currently have and have had many high-quality teacher evaluation systems. What we don't have is a high-quality capacity-building system. We don't do a good job of developing teacher capacity.

Inspection will not improve quality in any profession. Standing at the end of the assembly line with a clipboard noting defects will not improve quality. Evaluating teachers with a "better checklist" will not, in and of itself, improve instruction.

A system founded on inspection will only serve to drive teachers from the profession and deter new teachers from entering. Who would want to work in a system set up to determine who passes inspection and who does not? This sounds more like a state vehicle inspection program than it does an education initiative.

The Pledge

I asked our teachers to make a pledge to only hold our students accountable for what we taught them. If, for example, we wanted them to use a specific method of taking notes, it was our responsibility to teach them.

In return, I pledged to only hold teachers accountable for what I, as principal, taught them. There was, however, one exception and that was knowledge of their content area for which the state had already issued them a license to teach. It was my responsibility to provide the resources, training, and support they needed.

We don't have a teacher problem in this country. We have a capacity problem. Our teachers are, to a fault, dedicated, caring, and hard working. Teachers have faithfully done what we have asked them to do. The problem is we have changed the rules on teachers, but we have not changed the way we prepare and develop teachers.

First, we changed the parameters from some students going to college to all students being college and career-ready. Secondly, we changed the criteria for success from process to product. In the past, we judged teachers on their qualifications based on course work and on their ability to demonstrate sound pedagogy. Today, we judge teachers on student performance on state assessments for which the students themselves are, in most cases, not held accountable.

Improving teaching is about improving the quality of instruction, and we must build in quality through consistent, connected, and ongoing professional development.

Just hire the best teachers!

A researcher friend of mine once told me that I was wrong about school improvement. "All we need to do is hire great teachers and our problems are solved," he said. Since he had never worked in a school, I had to remind him of what happened in the real world.

First, great teachers aren't born. Teachers become great through the combination of ability and years of practice and a lot of hard work.

Second, teaching is a profession. As is the case in any profession, teachers are expected to grow and improve throughout their careers.

Third, many new teachers have had only a few weeks of actual classroom experience. They need a lot of support early in their careers.

Finally, the school leader plays an important role in both the short-term and long-term growth of a new teacher and whether that teacher will remain in the profession. In most districts around the country, the responsibility for providing professional development falls on the school principal.

School Technology: Show Me the Money!

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:13:59 -0500

When I read a recent article entitled Can Technology Fix Education, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. I could tell from the article that the authors never set foot in a school and had no idea of the current context in which schools operate.

The following are key points made by the authors and my comments:

Why not harness the "power and popularity" to boost student achievement? School leaders would love to provide each student with his or her own computing device. However, we don't have the money and we have not had the money in the last twenty-five years to do so.
Schools are currently restricting the use of (personally owned) devices because they are considered to be a distraction. Until we go one-to-one, we are merely playing or dabbling around the edges of technology integration. And don't give me the line about giving every student an iPod. iPods and iPhones are band-aids and a poor man's replacement for real learning technology. Sure, I use my iPad and iPhone to send emails, but neither is my primary device and neither is it the primary computing device for the authors. Can you imagine going to work for a company and being shown your desk and given nothing but a phone?
Educators are viewed as restricting what is perhaps the "best way to reach and teach our kids." Today's students are not impressed by textbooks, whiteboards, or projection screens. Today's teachers are making do with what they have. Many are feeling fortunate just to have a job. Many have not had a raise in years. It is clear that the authors have not been in schools to view firsthand the negative impact long-running budget cuts are having on school facilities and equipment.
"Technology has succeeded in reshaping other industries, including banking and travel. Technology can transform education as well." Technology has reshaped the administrative processes not the training of and development of employees. Schools are not banks. Technology has not replaced the doctor in a hospital and it will not replace the teacher in a classroom. Technology does not make the doctor a better doctor, but technology does help the doctor provide better care. Technology will not make the teacher a better teacher, but technology will help the teacher provide enhanced instruction.
"But it (technology) can’t be used willy-nilly. If we want to realize technology’s full potential it needs to be used in a “closed-loop” system that uses technology at every level to provide continuous improvement in instruction and outcomes, with real-time feedback, and one-on-one intervention, where necessary." I agree wholeheartedly. We cannot fairly evaluate something that we have never fully implemented. We can't say that a diet didn't work if we never tried it. Until every student has his or her own device, we have not fully implemented technology. We are still dabbling around the edges of technology integration.

Why has the technology revolution bypassed education?

Investment is at too low of a level. Schools spend about 1.6% of total spending on technology, while comparable industries spend 4-6%. Correct. We have not and do not have the funds to fully implement technology in our schools, period.
Schools use technology to automate and support administrative tasks and not to support learning. "The chief opportunity for innovation in education doesn’t center on automating the status quo, but redesigning the process." The reason why technology has been used primarily to automate and support schools is because the business side of education must interface with other business, who also use technology. In addition, technology saves money by replacing support staff.
The "sheer number of companies now in the education IT business, will most likely encourage school systems to take advantage of reduced costs. Virtual schools and classrooms will also further encourage the acquisition and use of technology. If we were in a strong economy, schools would be investing heavily in technology for the reasons stated. There is a perfect convergence of declining unit cost and rising computing power. Less expensive devices can finally begin to do what teachers need them to do, but we don't have the money.

And what about social media "Of course, we can’t let technology become the distraction many educators fear. We don’t want kids texting or engaging with friends on Facebook when they’re supposed to be studying. There need to be guardrails." Sure, let's enter the "modern era," but let's ban social media. The authors tip their naive hats on this issue.

"There’s no legitimate reason education can’t adapt to the modern era. When it does we’ll see students who are more engaged, more proficient, and more likely to graduate and succeed as adults." Correct, there is no "legitimate reason" except, of course, money. After all, it's only money.

What we need to know about collaborative learning

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:55:53 -0500

Students want and need interaction with peers, which has been shown to improve learning. When students work in groups, what and how much they learn is directly related to the effectiveness of the interaction with their peers.

Some groups are naturally more productive than others. While some peer groups seem to interact naturally, others "struggle to maintain a balance of participation, leadership, under-standing, and encouragement."

The act of placing students in groups is not in itself an effective instructional strategy. The key is what happens in the groups.

Effective groups are characterized by:

Questioning
Explanations using evidence
Elaboration
Reflection
Role Identification (Leader, Time Keeper, Scribe...)

The fact that a course is being conducted online does not alter the needs of the students. The principles of effective group instruction and support apply to both live and online instruction.

The Bottom Line

Skilled teachers take the time to instruct students not only in the cognitive skills necessary to learn the subject matter, but also in the social skills they need to work effectively and collaboratively in a team.
Students should only be held accountable for what we teach them, and that includes the skills needed to work effectively in groups.

Seeing Red Cars?

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:55:46 -0500

Author Laura Goodrich is always Seeing Red Cars.

"Here's the metaphor: You buy your dream car and it happens to be red. Suddenly you see red cars everywhere you look. Why? Because you're focusing on red cars... (RT @LauraGoodrich: You get more of whatever you focus on!"

Seeing Red Cars has two important messages for school leaders:

1. We get more of what we focus on. Why? Because we are "teleological" beings--we move toward and become like that which we think about and focus on. The problem is that most school leaders don't have a clear vision of what they do want, in part because they spend so much time putting out fires in the present that they don't have time to think about the future.

2. Most people spend more time focusing on what they don't want as opposed to what they do want and as Wayne Dyer says, "We never get enough of what we don't want." The sad truth is that most school leaders have a lot of detail about what they don't want. In other words, they have a clear vision of what they want to avoid. So, if we are focusing on what we don't want, we are moving inexorably toward it. That's precisely how we get stuck in a rut.

Don't believe me. Check it out for yourself. Begin asking people about "what they want." Most will immediately begin telling you what they don't want, which is a clear sign that they are in a "stuck state."

Action Step: Instead, begin talking with your staff about what you do want and the things that you can control. Begin today to develop your vision for every aspect of your school from the cafeteria and hallways to classroom instruction. If you can't picture it, you won't see it!

Good Educational Technology is Plug and Play

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:58:20 -0500

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post Mel Riddile discussed the adverse effect of educators failing to fully utilize available technology. He pointed to the fact that too often various tools are bought for schools and then are not used effectively.

“We cannot fairly evaluate something that we have not implemented. We can't say that a diet didn't work if we never tried it…We are still dabbling around the edges of technology integration.

“In fact, we educators are unintentionally doing more harm to the argument for more technology than we are doing any good.”

In a follow-up post I endorsed those sentiments by contrasting his concerns with the manner in which the calculator has been integrated into the high school math classroom.

“By introducing 21stcentury technology into math, the course became alive and intriguing for 21st century students. Regardless of the price tag it was an educational bargain.

And more importantly, it had, in the words of Mel Riddile, become a "necessity." The incorporation of the graphing calculator in math should serve as a role model for the rest of school-based technology.”

When good technology goes bad

While it is clear that tools like the graphing calculator can enhance the educational experience and need to be utilized fully, there is no guarantee that all technology is of equal benefit in the classroom. One of my former colleagues was quick to inform me that a blanket endorsement of the utility of every device is a mistake.

“No one loves technology more than I do; I use it whenever I can. But there is one thing that too many people don’t understand about employing it in the classroom—if it’s not ‘plug and play’ it is often not worth the effort. If something is unreliable, complicated or ill-conceived it will most likely be abandoned or discarded.

“For example, I loved “Logger Pro." It allowed the kids to collect and analyze data quickly. It made labs more informative, allowed students to use data rather than to just collect it. It was much like the graphing calculator. It basically involved an “on” and “off” switch to operate. Instead of spending time fighting with balky equipment, the time was spent with the students analyzing the information they had obtained.

“That is not always the case. Many of the innovations that are offered to teachers either don’t deliver the advertised results or don’t work at all. To be effective in a classroom it has to be ‘plug and play’ and that means play effectively.”

Going off the “deep” end

She is not alone in her experiences. For all of the good results that the calculator brought to the math classroom there were tech horror stories as well. In the mid-nineties my school district made a huge financial investment in a particular software program, which was advertised as a self-guided learning tool for Algebra 1. For weeks the teachers tried in vain to make the system work. Untold hours of class time were lost. Finally, in frustration I called the company’s educational liaison to explain the nuances of the program at a math department meeting. Twenty minutes into the planned presentation she was still struggling to get the software functioning. As the room became restless she asked for ten more minutes. It was to no avail; as teachers began to drift out of the computer lab she promised to come back at a later date when she was better prepared. We never saw her again. The software was “deep-sixed” by the department.

Lessons learned

Wasting thirty or forty minutes of a teacher’s afternoon is unfortunate but not disastrous. However, fumbling with recalcitrant software in front of 30 adolescents for even half that amount of time is an educational nightmare. Likewise trying to set up a complicated piece of technology in the seven minutes of passing time between classes is a formula for a classroom meltdown. Patience is not a typical characteristic of high school students. Any new method of instruction is usually allotted only one opportunity to fail.

Making classroom technology work

Mel Riddile is correct in setting a goal of fully implementing technology in the classroom. Such an approach is essential for preparing students to be successful in the world of 2011. Classroom instruction must reflect the tools available both inside and outside the school. There are, however, several guidelines that need to be followed:

Training requirements must be centered on the teachers not the students. Teachers can afford to invest time in learning how to effectively use new technologies. What they cannot afford is spending large amounts of time in class to instruct and reinstruct 30 individuals on how to employ the equipment. Effective technologies should require little more than a flip of a switch by students.
Equipment must be dependable. A lesson plan based on a piece of software or a data-gathering device that fails, results is lost class time – a precious commodity in education. Therefore a high level of reliability is a key requirement for any piece of classroom equipment.
Technology must enhance instruction. Too many pieces of expensive equipment can be found gathering dust in storage rooms across the nation. Some new innovations represent marvelous technological breakthroughs but often do little to actually improve instruction. Before purchasing any new teaching tools, districts should seek input from teachers who have extensively used the devices under consideration. Something that is essential for a Social Studies class may have little or no value in a Physics lab.
Customer service must be effective and readily available. When the inevitable problems with technology arise, teachers must be able to obtain quick and reliable support. The in-school specialists are rarely equipped to help with such specific questions. Quality help should never be more than one phone call or email away.
The equipment must be easy to set up and take down. Teachers may need to utilize a specific technology for one class but not for the one that precedes or follows it. It must also be portable. Teachers move from one classroom to another and/or share equipment with multiple teachers, the technology has to be equally mobile.

SAT Cheating Scandal: Criminal Conspiracy or Life Imitating Art?

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:07:50 -0500

According to a New York Times report, a 19-year-old sophomore at Emory University was arrested for allegedly accepting $2500 from six different Long Island, NY high school students to take their Scholastic Aptitude Test(SAT). Isolated Incident?

“I do believe it’s more systemic than just Great Neck North,” said Kathleen M. Rice, the district attorney for Nassau County. Rice said "the cheating problem was widespread, a sentiment echoed by school administrators and superintendents."

High Stakes = More Cheating

“As tests have become higher-stakes tests, as the competition between kids for scholarships and college entrance has increased, the likelihood of kids looking for ways to beat the system — to cheat — has increased,” said Henry Grishman, superintendent of Jericho Public Schools on Long Island, which has 3,200 students.

No Consequences

Some believe that the problem is exacerbated by several factors:

There is no consequence for cheaters. The tests are simply removed.
"Neither colleges nor high schools are ever alerted that cheating was suspected."
Students are not required to take the test at their own school.
School officials do not receive a list of test takers ahead of time, which some believe would improve security.

How Much Cheating

According to one ETS official, "2.25 million SATs taken every year, about 1,000 scores are withdrawn for misbehavior, 99 percent of which are for copying."

Life Imitating Art?

This incident closely resembles the story line of the USA Network's "Suits" in which one of the main characters earned his living by taking LSATs for law school candidates. Is cheating on SATs more extensive or is this a case of life imitating art?

Now What?

School leaders may want to review their security procedures around SAT administration at their school.