Back to School

I have always looked forward to the beginning of a new school year. For many years, my anticipation has been enhanced by the fact that I had spent a lot of my summer hours doing curriculum mapping, developing lesson ideas, trying out science demos, visiting potential field trip locations, and many other preparatory activities that I seldom have enough time to do thoroughly after the school year starts. These things have never been drudgery for me, and I’ve never begrudged the time spent doing them – in fact, I enjoy them, as they are an outlet for the creativity and fun that make teaching such a joy for me.

Due to some unfortunate circumstances a few years ago, I found myself spending the last few summers either teaching in a year-round program that had no significant break, or looking for a new job. In the latter case, it’s nearly impossible to use summer to prepare for fall, since there’s no way of knowing what fall will bring.

This year I was fortunate enough to find a teaching position in a district that hired early. I have been able to spend the past several weeks preparing, brainstorming new ideas, researching, and creating.

Next week is crunch-time. Am I ready? I hope so. There will be much to learn of a new community, school procedures, and lots and lots of new names and faces. But I am once again facing this new beginning inspired and excited to implement the ideas I have been working on.

I will miss sleeping after 8am. I will miss spending lazy afternoons out at the stable, reading in the shade while my horses graze. I will miss the spontaneity with which I can decide to go to the city, or the flexibility with which I can schedule a game of golf. And, sadly, once again there are a dozen projects that either never got finished or never got started.

But school starts next week, and I CAN’T WAIT!

What education reform really needs.

I have absolutely nothing to add to this article. It is perfect, and it speaks truth to power. Read it. Share it. Make it viral.

This is what teachers have been saying all along.

Are schools wounding kids? You bet they are!

Not intentionally, of course. Teachers love children. That’s a fact. People who don’t believe that are looking at teachers through their school-aged eyes. Kids never know how their teachers really feel or think, but they project thoughts and feelings onto those teachers from a child’s point of view that they remember into adulthood. That’s the primary reason that teachers get so little respect, even from those (administrators, academics, legislators) who should know better.

But I digress.

Since NCLB, teachers have suffered. Teachers are some of the most creative and enthusiastic people around. We have great senses of humor, we love to try new things, and we are inspired by learning. We’ve been that way since we were kids; our enjoyment of learning is what led us to the teaching profession. Not just learning about a subject, or learning a new skill; lots of people get excited about that. The act of learning – anything- holds a special charm for teachers. And we want to pass it on. Because every time our students learn something, we get that thrill all over again.

But NCLB has taken the emphasis off of learning and placed it on performance. Performance as measured on standardized tests. Not performance as measured by classroom achievement, improvement of skills, or authentic learning. This measurement of performance not only stunts the students’ intellectual growth, but it also thwarts the creativity of the teacher.

Since the institution of NCLB, standardized test scores have risen incrementally. The drop-out rate has not been reduced. The performance gap between rich and poor, black and white has not decreased to a statistically significant degree. The percentage of Americans with bachelors degrees has not increased. Special education students have not increased their scores significantly or increased their enrollment in post-secondary education.

Just as many, if not more, children are left behind in 2009. But what else has been left behind? The joy of teaching and learning. And that is a real loss.

Who will pay the meritorious teachers?

Obama: “Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom.”

How will these merit raises and bonuses be paid for? Or will they? Will this become yet another unfunded mandate?

Or will anyone ever receive it?

My guess is that the money will come out of the school districts’ already thin salary schedules, keeping baseline teacher salaries too skimpy to attract and retain the highest caliber teachers in the neediest areas.

The bonuses will be based on a number of factors, not just student test scores. These factors will be based on highly subjective teacher evaluation schemes that are easily manipulated to ensure frugality. Or, with salary schedules cut to the bone, the bonuses will become retention incentives and be meaningless in terms of rewarding teacher excellence.

Seems to me it’s the students who need to get better at learning. The teachers are doing their best.

Instead of charters, let’s fix the public schools.

Arne Duncan recently addressed the national conference of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools  and challenged them to “…adapt (their) educational model to turning around our lowest-performing schools.”

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has published a proposed Model For Supporting The Growth Of High-Quality Public Charter Schools. Part of this model suggests automatic waivers of educational laws and regulations for charter schools:

“To provide public charter schools with needed autonomy, states and districts waive many of the state and local lows, rules, and regulations that burden traditional public schools.” (emphasis added)

” ‘Except as provided in this Act, a public charter school shall not be subject to the state’s education statutes or any state or local rule, regulation, policy, or procedure relating to non-charter publec schools…established by the local school board, the state board of education, or the state department of education’ “

If state and local regulations are responsible for diminishing the effectiveness of public schools, why don’t we deregulate them? Which regulations and/or state and local laws are hindering the success of public schools?

Let’s face it; some charter schools are non-profit, and some are for-profit, but schools are, by their nature, not profitable enterprises. For one thing, the labor pool is outrageously expensive. For another, the money stream is unpredictable. Nobody’s getting rich operating charter schools.

Charter schools are operated by people with a vision. Sometimes that vision is blurry, sometimes it is hawk-like, and sometimes it is forest-for-the-trees myopic, but it is a vision of success for students, positive social change, and contributing to the advancement of the American Dream.

Isn’t that how public schools started out? How did they become so bogged-down in regulations that they could no longer provide the populace the freedom and power through education envisioned by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann?

What happened was, we took policy and decision-making away from educators and placed it in the hands of politicians. Politicians can be influenced by special interests. And, of course, everybody is an expert on public school because everybody (almost) spends 12 years of their lives there.

But if we have really come to a place in the evolution of public education where the laws and regulations that are supposed to enhance it are actually responsible for its failure, then maybe it’s time to put the educators back in charge.

Hey, Mr. Duncan, how about examining how public schools are hampered by federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations? Like NCLB? Like un-funded and underfunded mandates? Like expectations for solving societal problems that they have no power to control?

When all of the schools are charter schools, the rules won’t apply anyway.

Special or “Special”

 

Without a doubt, African-American boys are over-represented in special education. The problem is, African-American boys need and deserve a different teaching and learning methodology from the mainstream (i.e., white) educational model that still prevais in public schools – especially in highly populated areas. Over-crowded classrooms and ill-conceived pedagogies are the true “learning” disabilities; but don’t blame the teachers – they already know what’s wrong, but are powerless to change it.

We all know that students who truly have “learning disabilities” are, by definition, otherwise bright kids who struggle to organize information and use traditional curriculum materials. Sadly, though, many children who truly have serious cognitive difficulties or emotional difficulties have been euphemistically labeled as learning disabled because of the stigma associated with mental retardation and mental illness. In addition, the majority of special education classes are cross-categorical, meaning that students with true learning disabilities are placed alongside students with significantly low intellectual functioning and seriously disruptive behavioral disorders. For this reason, teachers are unable to focus their efforts on providing curricular support while maintaining the scope and pacing necessary to allow capable students who would otherwise be cooperative and proactive in the learning process to participate in the same educational opportunities as their “non-disabled” peers.

Lowering class sizes and providing support($)for alternative curricular materials, and allowing teacher-creativity and problem-solving would significantly reduce the number of inappropriate referrals to special education. Accuracy and honesty in applying eligibility standards to special education placements would prevent the dumping that makes special education an undesirable option for kids who truly need curricular modification. Societal education to eliminate the stigma of diagnoses like mental retardation and emotional disorders will open more doors for kids who need real help.

Duncan Compares Teacher Pay to Ballplayers

“…to somehow suggest we should not link student achievement to teacher effectiveness is like suggesting we judge sports teams without looking at the box score,” said Duncan, a former professional basketball player.

Okay. Comparing teaching to professional sports? Here’s one teacher who will accept merit pay on the condition that 1) I get paid as much as professional ballplayer, and 2) my contract is as iron-clad.

The minimum salary for a first-year player in the NBA, with or without a college education, is $457,588 (No one makes the minimum). He plays 82 1-hour games in the regular season. He earns this salary whether or not his team wins a single game. He has options, and waivers, and free-agency, meaning he can be traded to another team for at least the same salary, and if he is not picked up by another team he will still be paid for the season even if he no longer plays.

The starting salary for a first year public school teacher is around $34,000, with a bachelors degree (everyone starts at the first step of the salary schedule in their first year). She teachers 180 6-hour days (this varies from district to district, but few, if any, are less). She is a probationary employee who can be dismissed at will, without cause, until such time as she is granted tenure. Tenure simply means that she must be told in advance that she will be dismissed, and for what reason, and given an opportunity to remediate the cause for dismissal. If dismissed, tenured or not, she immediately ceases to receive a salary. If the school district decides they no longer need her services, she has no option to be traded to another district.

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. I’d love to be paid like a ballplayer.

Duncan Promotes Merit Pay; Where’s the Equity?

Education Secretary Arne Duncan proposes judging teachers on student performance. Well, yeah, but how will we measure that performance? By comparing test scores with those of students from other nations? Through an arbitrary process of standardized testing without common, national standards?

Currently, teachers’ salaries are based on three things: The local school district’s ability/willingness to pay; the teacher’s years of experience, and the amount of education beyond the bachelors or masters level. These are easily measured, do not depend on subjectivity, and provide a hierarchy of salary that the teacher herself can positively affect. There is no state or national standard for teachers’ salaries, and the wide variation in earning potential is dependent on the state and local funding formula and sources for a given district. This usually translates into higher salaries for teachers in more affluent areas, and lower salaries in less affluent areas.

Teachers in more affluent areas often enjoy the fruits of their community’s affluence in the classroom in the form of better prepared students, fewer disruptions due to student behavior or absenteeism, greater availability of resources, participation by parents who are highly educated, and higher quality of facilities. In less affluent areas, teachers often struggle against the poor preparedness of their students due to lack of enrichment, high absenteeism, disruptions of students who may place a lower value on the educational process, distractions due to high crime rates, shortages of personnel and materials, and lack of parental support due to absent or poorly-educated parents. Their school buildings are older, many are obsolete, with poor ventilation, ineffective heating systems, no air conditioning, antiquated lighting, electrical systems that will not support the requirements of modern technology, even inoperative plumbing.

This disparity in resources can be seen quite clearly when we examine the achievement gap between affluent schools and financially struggling schools. Is the reason for the disparity the difference in teacher salary? No, indeed, teacher salary is just one indicator of the inequity of the distribution of resources.

So, Mr. Duncan, how do you propose to ameliorate these inequities through merit pay? First of all, do you think teachers in lower-achieving schools just aren’t trying hard enough? If you just promise them that they will make more money, they’ll work harder to overcome the obstacles faced by students living in poverty?

The implication that teachers lack incentive to inspire students to achieve, and that by paying them more if their students achieve we can overcome the shortcommings of the American educational system, is insulting and absurd. Doctors do not get paid more if their patients recover and less if they remain ill or die.  Neither teachers nor doctors strive harder for the promise of higher pay. Both professions have a higher calling.

Mr. Duncan, let’s make your salary dependent on factors beyond your control. Since NCLB requires ALL students to be proficient in math and reading by 2014, let’s challenge you to provide 100% equal funding, facilities, and resources for ALL schools.

Learning should not hurt.Part 1.

Please read the Education Week article: Discipline by Teachers Can Turn Deadly. Then come right back here. I’ll wait for you.

I mourn the loss and pain of these precious children and their families. It is not my intent to defend the actions of teachers or aides or technicians that do these things to children. But sadly, this is not the first report of death or injury to special students, and it won’t be the last. So what do we do to prevent it?

First, let’s look at the case of Cedric, who died as the result of physical restraint by a teacher. What a horrible thing. I’m sure he struggled and called out for help, complaining that he couldn’t breathe. Was this teacher “just doing her job”? Chances are, the answer to that question is “yes”. In a significant number of schools that serve students like Cedric, who often have extreme behaviors of violence, aggression, destruction of property, and self-injury, one of the hiring criteria for staff is the willingness and ability to provide physical intervention. To their credit, most schools which specialize in services to physically challenging students have strict policies and protocols for the administration of physical restraint. Often these protocols include the use of proprietary methods such as CPI and TCI. Both of these programs emphasize prevention before physical intervention, have strict safety protocols for implementation such as no pressure on chest (TCI is a supine restraint) or back (CPI is a prone restraint), and apply differential restraint procedures for the relative sizes of recipient and implementers. Neither allow for a single implementer to exert their own body weight on the torso of the recipient. Both require annual re-certification. If either of these programs were properly implemented in Cedric’s case, he would be alive today.

Was Cedric’s teacher given the support and training needed to promote safety? Or was Cedric’s teacher one of the many who are judged on their teaching ability based on classroom management skills that include stopping class disruptions, fights, and crises by whatever means necessary without administrative understanding or logistical support? All too often, when teachers request assistance in their classroom because of disciplinary problems, the teacher herself is condemned as incompetent in the area of classroom management. This is an artifact of the days when a stern look and a firm “sit down young man!” could stop the typical male posturing that inevitably occurs in middle school and high school It also comes from a time when students with severely deviant behavioral challenges were treated in separate educational facilities (and I use the word treated advisedly – therapeutic day schools generally provide ancillary therapies to address severe emotional disabilities, general education schools do not).

I’m not even going to discuss the changes in adolescent culture that promotes volence and reactivity as adaptive social skills. Suffice it to say that the typical antics of middle-school and high school students are antithetical to the overall classroom goal of academic attainment. I’m talking about seriously disturbed children. They are in general education high school classrooms, too.

Bottom line, it is up to the teacher to control the classroom. The teacher’s copntinued employment depends on it. Disciplinary referrals will be counted against the teacher’s performance review. On top of this, the teacher took a special ed assignment. Physical altercations are a daily occurance in many special education classrooms. Most schools that have no particular protocol in place for physical intervention have a basic hands-off policy, instead advising teachers to call for help from a Dean or from security personnel. The Dean and the security personnel often feel that their responsibility for helping to maintain decorum does not extend to special education students. Administration again admonishes the teacher to handle it herself. Performance reviews continue to underscore the teacher’s inability to alter the fundamental nature of the disability for which students are placed in the special education class in the first place. The teacher doesn’t lose her temper. The teacher acts out of desperation.

Now, I don’t mean to sound as if I’m blaming students for their actions. This is not a question of blame. These kids are who they are. I know them well; I have taught them and loved them for 28 years. The behavior comes with the territory. Part of my job is to open their eyes to behavioral options they have not yet discovered or assimilated, so that they have choices in how they respond to their internal and external stressors. And part of my job is to keep developing and refining my own options so that I am bringing an adequate repertoire of effective teaching tools to the table every day. But when you’re up to your ass in aligators…

Was Cedric’s teacher trained in appropriate restraint techniques? Did she have adequate physical back-up staff in the classroom? Why was she restraining alone? Did she have administrative support? Access to a multidisciplinary team? Input into Cedric’s Behavior Intervention Plan (assuming he had one)? Knowledge of the BIP? Special Education training? What were the mediating factors in the classroom at the time of the incident? Preceding the incident? How did her handling of the situation compare to school cultural norms?

This woman has not been charged with a crime, even though the death was ruled a homicide. She continues to teach. God help her. If it was me, I would be drooling and catatonic and/or suicidal. There’s so much more to this story than a superficial allegation of “child abuse”.

To outlaw all physical contact with students who are behaviorally or cognitively impaired will make schools, even special schools, unsafe for them and for their peers. To allow shoddy practices to endanger the safety of these kids, who, despite their undesirable behaviors, are disabled, will only create more tragedy. But we must be careful not to place blame easily – lest the blame fall on ourselves.

Loss of options for the neediest students

Two recent special education-related stories have made me very sad today. The first reports the closing of specialized facilities in New Jersey. Students in these state-operated schools will be consigned to local and county school districts for the school year beginning fall of 2009. The press release cites declining enrollments and the need to focus on child protection as the reason for this restructuring. It appears that this decision came as a surprise to staff and families of the schools, so it probably came as a surprise to the local and county school districts who will be assuming responsibility for these fragile and needy students in three months. Three months is hardly enough time for implementation of services for these children. There is a reason these kids attended the specialized schools: their local schools lacked the personnel and facilities to provide for their highly specialized needs. How are they going to be able to develop an infrastructure to support these kids in just three months? Economic stimulus money will not support the long-term needs of this type of programming. School boards are unlikely to support the level of spending necessary to replicate the quality of services. It might have been economically feasible to centralize services and pool resources to meet these highly unique needs on a regional level, but on the local level the number of students who need this level of care is so low that the cost will be prohibitive.

What will happen to these kids?

Their parents will try to advocate for them to receive the same support services and therapies that they received in the special schools. The local school district will counter that they do not employ personnel to provide those services. Possibility one: the local school district says services will commence as soon as someone can be hired. Possibility two: the local school district will seek contractual services from a private service provider over whom they have no quality oversight and for whom the cost will actually exceed the salary and benefit cost of  an employee when factored over several students. Possibility three: the local school district will offer private school placement, at twice the cost of tuition to the prior state-run school, that may or may not require excessive travel or residential services. Possibility four: the local school district will stand firm on the premise that proximity to and opportunity to interact with non-disabled peers will more than compensate for the reduction in direct therapies and specialized educational treatment.

In all likelihood, some combination of all four of those scenarios will occur, with school districts forced to choose how much of their already-thin special education resources will be diverted to these extreme services, and ultimately, education for students all along the spectrum of special education will be compromised.