Another Hiatus

Apologies I have not kept up with this blog. It will continue, but I am currently reevaluating how I’m choosing articles and the type of content the blog will have.

Thanks for all the great info and I’ll be back soon!

I need to write shorter posts, I know

There.

Common Core Standardized Tests Coming: Will they be better?

Experts See Hurdles Ahead for Common Core Tests

This is something cool I didn’t actually know about. Everyone working in Delaware definitely knows about the new Common Core Standards because we’ve been undergoing plenty of training about it and probably seeing a good deal of hand-wringing and hearing a fair amount of grumbling. Well tough, because whatever needs to be tweaked about the Common Core, it’s about time we developed one nationally, especially if it’s harder than the ones we have now. First off as [effective] teachers we know if we hold ourselves and our students to higher standards they will achieve better (and why would we ever limit what we are aiming for). Second, it makes no senses for teachers moving states to have to relearn standards, nor especially does it make sense for students moving states to be expected to know different things.

Anyways, the cool thing, though, is that apparently there are two organizations who are developing a standardized test based on these Common Core standards. The great thing about this is that no longer will we have to come up with correlation tables or charts to see how our students rank across the country, and test prep materials and instruction can be shared across the country. (I really want to ask why we didn’t do this before, but that will have to come later–I still need to prepare some stuff for my lessons tomorrow).

This article informs about the tests, which is great, but focuses on exactly what the title suggests: hurdles that need to be tackled for these common core tests. Here are the take-aways from this article:

• Two tests are being created that will be computer-based, Common Core based, and adaptive, including a benchmark teachers can use to gauge progress. They will hopefully even have what accommodations students are allowed so instructors won’t run into gray areas (I’m assuming this means things like which words are allowed to be read to students, etc.). It is unclear whether the tests target different grade levels or that they are meant to compete against each other. Perhaps they are meant to be used in different states (that seems counter to the spirit of the Common Core, but it’s certainly possible).
• A LOT is expected of these new tests and people are warning that it is not the quick fix everyone is expecting and that in fact many of the benefits will be seen only with time–it will require a period of tweaking and adjusting.
• The timeline is short, with a rollout expected (and I think mandated) by 2014.
• The tests will play some role in the more and more popular mindset of using test results to reflect on teacher performance.
• One of the directors actually admits that they are betting on new tech to be available in 2014 when tests rollout to make what they are tasked to do feasible (such as easy access to iPads, etc.

Here are my initial thoughts:

• First, I’m hoping they are looking towards established similar tests such as the NWEA MAPs test–we always try to avoid re-inventing the wheel in education and I really hope this isn’t happening here.
• The point about the quick fix hits home with me and reminds me of something my friend Brett (actually one of the most frequent commenters on this blog) pointed out about how it’s obvious to “people like us” (I’ll let you fill in the gap there) that things like this need to be tested and tweaked through several years and that to “us” 4 or 5 years doesn’t seem that long, but to many voters and lawmakers, that timeline is unacceptable. Instead people expect quick fixes and want to see results immediately. Which may be one of the reasons we don’t get things done–quick fixes when they do work seldom address systemic and deep-rooted issues, which seem to be present in education policy. It’s very annoying because it seems like we see too often a great idea crippled and then discarded because of a lack of funding, time, and faith  not even just in education policy).
• One line in the article said something about teachers needing to see tests as something FOR them (assessments designed to inform instruction) rather than something done TO them. I think this is a very important point–I’ve been (correction, I AM) on the other side of this and definitely stress much more about these tests than on my students (granted I teach 2nd grade, but I try to pump them up about the test). Admin needs to do their part to assure that these tests provide helpful information to be used not necessarily fodder for their holding dismissal over their teachers, and then follow through with that promise.
• The last point about the directors assuming new tech seems ludicrous to me. He said it was more than feasible given current trends that iPads or similar equipment would be in most schools across the country. Whether or not this is believed to be true, something so important should not be contingent on currently nonexistent dreams.

The last section about getting states to all get onboard were changes needed to be made  was also interesting because of the double-edged sword effect. On the one hand, joint development means greater buy-in and saving of resources. On the other hand, joint development means bureaucracy is more abundant as all participating states are required to sign off on changes.

Here’s crossing my fingers this works out. Any thoughts from anyone?

I’m back!

I’m back! Sorry for the hiatus everyone, I was sick followed by a period of intense test-prep followed by a college reunion and accordingly several days of substitute planning (which through a fluke accident didn’t even get used, sigh) and now my dealing with the surprisingly less than I expected but still there fall-out of all of this.

Whew, that sentence stressed me out even saying it! Well I’m back and reading a new article as I write (well, not literally).

See you soon!

 

PS My next article is about standardized testing, something I’m sure is near and dear to all of our hearts. We at Kuumba just took one set and will be taking another one in 3 weeks.

Back Tomorrow

Unscheduled hiatus, sorry about that. I’ll be back tomorrow.

Still sick, last time I did this…

The immediate last time I did this I said screw it and posted anyway.

In terms of my sickness, I spent one day “recuperating,” went back to work for a day, ended up with a fever and being out for the next weekend. We’ll see how tomorrow goes, fingers crossed!!

 

Meanwhile, for your enjoyment:

Mandated grade inflation…really? Thank goodness it’s being challenged.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7477309.html

 

I just posted about charter schools not necessarily being best but being raved about regardless. Point for the latter:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/21/26detroit.h30.html?tkn=SLTF%2FHT8Vwv3CzSl7c4UWVoW18tAcWo%2Bl%2Bbh&cmp=clp-edweek

 

And…of course, wouldn’t you know it? Budget cuts hitting poorest schools the hardest

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/21/414302cschoolcutsimpact_ap.html?r=1939253415

(have to login to read)

Sickness be darned!

Dissent Magazine – Winter 2011 Issue – Got Dough? How Billion…

I have to look up the sources cited in this article (as well as finish the article…it’s quite long), but it brings up some very interesting points. Credit goes to Yuan Hou, a buddy of mine still kicking it in the Big C (does that work as a nickname for Chicago?).

Interesting points:

• Three major foundations: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and Walton Family Foundation
• Stanford University did a study in 2009 finding 83% of charter schools perform no better or worse than public school peers.
• Vanderbilt University did a study in 2010 that showed “definitively” [I’ll have to look into this] that merit pay does not raise overall student scores.
• Schools that have lower levels of poverty score rather well internationally, drawing the conclusion that it is poverty in our country that is the problem, not public education.
• The cognitive, physical, and social gap that has a rippling and crippling effect on students is set by age three.

First off, it’d be interesting to learn more about the other foundations–we all have definitely heard of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but not so much the Broad or Walton ones, I’d venture to guess. The article at first glance seems to be an at least semi-attack on them so I’ll take everything I read with a grain of salt, but it also seems well-informed (a title of “dissent” for the magazine name is off-putting, but then again, my blog’s name is “come fight me”).

The two studies mentioned bear further research. I seem to recall reading about the Stanford U study, but it also seems to conform with our regional experience of charter school performance. Being employed by a charter school as I am, I will nonetheless note some of the failings charter schools tend to have (not adhering to its outlined charter vision, lack of funding/resources available to a public school district, politics, not using a charter’s natural advantages such as at-will employment). The merit pay study I definitely want to find. I question any study’s ability to “definitively” show something as contentious as merit pay not working, but its findings are certainly worth reading and discussing.

Finally, the point about poverty being the problem hits home and seems to be true, but from an educator’s perspective, we have to focus on our “locus of control”–what we can directly impact. Teachers and education policy makers cannot affect a child’s cognitive development before that student enters school, but it definitely brings up an interesting point about early childhood education (every deficit hawk’s dream–make pre-K mandatory across the nation).

I’m sick

Terrible timing I know especially since I’ve got a backlog of interesting articles to read and comment. Interesting that as a teacher I always get sick on Fridays, like my immune system is temporarily boosting itself until the week is done. It happened the first day of winter break too…

 

For now:

 

Layoffs based on performance, not seniority

http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-11/news/28680535_1_teacher-layoffs-seniority-teacher-performance

 

Interesting article on teachers hired after school year has started

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/16/24hire_ep.h30.html?tkn=VNVFOOjUYXuw%2FbqDvZkqgDT%2Bpegd5I1%2FXnoE&cmp=clp-edweek

 

Standardized tests becoming even more standardized

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/18/26mct_motests.h30.html?tkn=VPPFIwocdlOZMSR77HvXYcKaoq03RHUd6QMT&cmp=clp-edweek

 

I must have missed the memo.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-28-2011/crisis-in-dairyland—angry-curds

Pay New Teachers MORE Than Old Teachers?!

Scrap the Sacrosanct Salary Schedule : Education Next.

A couple of key notes.

• First, the fact that not many in America jump up at salespeople and other performance jobs getting performance-based pay.
• Second, the reference that there is at best a weak effect between credentials and effectiveness. There is also an effect of experience in the classroom (seniority)  that disappears after the first few years.
• The author proposes we simply take an intermediate step of NOT paying for seniority or meaningless credentials, reallocating these funds to starting salaries and such.

Let me first say that whenever I hear teachers unions and “old hands” being against merit pay, it always has seemed like they’re scared–of losing their pay and even their jobs. Don’t get me wrong–the excuse generally given is absolutely valid: evaluation-based pay could easily be subject to favoritism and politics, and I certainly don’t give our nation’s school administration enough credit to think they’d all be above that.

But do we think that would be the norm? One would hope that the system would not be taken advantage  of  so either because we [American society, specifically school administrators] are generally moral and honest people or because it would be more trouble than it was worth to the administrator’s who would take advantage.

Unfortunately, unions leadership and even membership is heavily skewed towards teachers with better seniority, so they of course advocate for things that benefit them–and who would blame them? It’s the same idea of why so little (yes, I said little) education funding is available to states and schools–most voters are senior citizens with students out of public school already, so why waste money on something that many don’t believe affect them anymore?

Yet at the same time, isn’t this akin to board members voting to increase their pay (or the cause of an even bigger potential outcry: senators proposing to raise their own pay when the country is becoming broke)? There’s a definite moral issue here but few [of the normal US electorate] are up in arms about it

What I found really interesting was the coherent idea of ignoring pointless certificates. This money could again, relocate to needed area like base starting teacher salary. There would also be great side-effects: fewer teachers going through the motions of such a program would leave more time to themselves, and it would save a bit of administrative costs.

Hm, I just nodded off for a moment so I’m going to bed now and will finish this post and muse on the week on Thursday and Friday.