Tuesday, September 2, 2014

9-2-14 Perdido Street School Week

The NYCDOE is supposed to send out final evaluation ratings for educators sometimes between 4 PM and 12 AM.Anybody gets theirs yet?If so, thoughts?If not yet, thoughts anyway?

by reality-based edu... / 19min

Why You Should Support Tim Wu Over Kathy Hochul For Lieutenant Governor

Zephyr Teachout's running mate, Columbia University law professor Tim Wu, has a decent shot to beat Governor Cuomo's running mate, Kathy Hochul, for the lieutenant governor slot.The Cuomo people want you to think Wu isn't a very serious person, that you should vote Hochul because she is very serious.Here's Wu's rebuttal to that:Wu also responded to an attack from former governor (and lieutenant go

by reality-based edu... / 20min

Governor Cuomo Not A Very Popular Guy On Social Media

.@mahoneyw examined about 1,200 Twitter messages expressing position on gov's race; only 12 - 1% - said something in support of @NYGovCuomo.— Liz Benjamin (@CTLizB) September 2, 2014Think about that for a minute - 1% of the 1,200 Twitter messages examined expressing a position on the governor's race were supportive of Governor Cuomo.What does that say about our governor?

by reality-based edu... / 32min

Why Isn't The Press Covering The Moreland Investigation Any Longer?

Thomas Kaplan reports many people around the state are taking the primary season to publicize their unhappiness with Governor Cuomo:He has been snubbed by unions representing teachers and state workers. Editorial boards are skewering him. Political rivals are lobbing attacks from his left and his right.A year ago, it looked as though Labor Day would mark the start of Andrew M. Cuomo’s smooth glide

by reality-based edu... / 2h hide // save

Let's Be Careful Out There

When Mayor Bloomberg was running the NYC school system, his attitude toward teachers was easy to read - he despised them, thought little of teachers as people and even less of teaching as a profession and wanted as many fired as possible.Every year around March we'd start the budget layoff season in which Bloomberg would threaten thousands of teacher layoffs.Every year those layoffs would be avert

2 by reality-based edu... / 5h

9-1-14 Perdido Street School Week

Perdido Street School: Politico: Obama's Teacher Evaluation Reform Agenda In "Disarray"It's a mess out there:The idea seems simple enough: Identify the best teachers and reward them. Pinpoint the worst and fire them. That’s been a linchpin of the Obama administration’s education agenda from the start. But now the administration’s initiative is in disarray, with states scaling back, slowi

1 by mike simpson / 9h

SES IS A MESS - (The Search For Secretary Duncan's Head) Tutoring Companies Stand to Cash In on States That Lose Waivers - Politics K-12 - Education Week

Tutoring Companies Stand to Cash In on States That Lose Waivers - Politics K-12 - Education Week:

Where is Education Secretary Duncan’s Head?

Where is Education Secretary Duncan’s Head? Found it!Today Secretary Duncan canceled Washington State’s No Child Left Behind Waiver. Why? Because Washington State’s ELECTED officials were not able to conform to Duncan demands to DO IT HIS WAY (you know, the corporate way to privatizing Public Education). I can’t decide if he is just Arne the Corporate Autocrat or he doesn’t care. Either way there

by mike simpson / 4h

SES IS A MESS So why only 8 Waivers? Supplemental Educational Services

Supplemental Educational Services: Supplemental Educational Services Statement on NCLB Waiver Approval - Year 2013"All California schools deserve relief from the unworkable mandates of No Child Left Behind"Description: What are supplemental educational services?Legislation: What does No Child Left Behind, section 1116(e), require for implementing supplemental educational services?Regulations: What

by mike simpson / 4h

Tutoring Companies Stand to Cash In on States That Lose Waivers

By Lauren Camera on September 2, 2014 9:58 AM

Written by guest blogger Michele Molnar. This post first appeared on Marketplace K-12.

Private tutoring companies in Washington are likely to get an influx of new students this fall, a direct result of the loss of the state's No Child Left Behind Act waiver in April. And by next year, Oklahoma could be another land of opportunity, after being denied an extension of its waiver by the U.S. Department of Education this week.

"I know of some providers that are expanding operations to these new markets," Steve Pines, executive director of the Education Industry Association, wrote in an email. The Vienna, Va.-based organization includes some tutoring companies among its members.

With about 20 states still waiting for waiver extensions, in addition to seven California districtsthat formed a coalition independent of their state, the tutoring industry could be ready for a bit of a rebound if many more denials are issued by the department in coming weeks.

Last year, we reported that tutoring companies were hard-hit when waiver setbacks meant loss of funding for the businesses that are called "supplemental educational service" providers in the law.

When the department revokes or denies states an extension of the waiver from the law's requirements, districts that are in the "improvement" category must devote 20 percent of their Title I funding to providing transportation for school choice, and after-school tutoring, usually through private contractors.

Now, an article from The News-Tribune in Tacoma. Wash., indicates that thousands of low-income families in Washington have started to receive direct mail offers for free tutoring from these providers. The companies' marketing and outreach for eligible students cannot include incentives in Washington, according to Gayle Pauley, Title I programs director with the state's Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. By not allowing incentives, "we really feel this will help families find those providers that want to help a child who needs to be a better reader or mathematician," Pauley said.

In past years, tutoring companies in many states attracted families by offering enticing incentives, from computers to MP3 players. That practice is one of many that the U.S. Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General addressed in a report on fraud in Title I tutoring programs, which details problems like free food offered to students who then failed to stay for tutoring sessions.

Of course, counting on the vicissitudes of waiver revocations or extension denials from the federal government could be challenging for tutoring companies' business models. Politics K-12's Lauren Camera reports that the education department is giving Oklahoma more time to implement tutoring and choice. (The state must now transition back to providing these no later than the start of the 2015-16 school year.) And, there's an opening for Oklahoma to fix its waiver problem--it was denied an extension after dropping the Common Core State Standards--if it adopts a new set of standards deemed college- and career-ready.

Stay tuned to the Politics K-12 blog for the developments on the department's decisions about the other states and California districts.

Two Schools of "School Reform:" The Conservative and the Progressive :: Frederick M. Hess

Two Schools of "School Reform:" The Conservative and the Progressive :: Frederick M. Hess:

Two Schools of "School Reform:" The Conservative and the Progressive

by Frederick M. Hess • Sep 2, 2014 at 8:33 am
Cross-posted from Education Week

Send

RSS

Hidy, all. I'm back. My thanks to August's stellar guest bloggers. Meanwhile, I've been working to finish The Cage-Busting Teacher and doing my best to reflect a little. One of the things I've been reflecting on is that a number of people have been asking me (sometimes in a puzzled tone, sometimes in an annoyed one), "Rick, you're a reformer. How can you think X?" I think a lot of the confusion is due to the way "reform" gets defined. As readers know, the education debate today is generally framed as "reformers" v. "anti-reformers." That divide contains much truth, but it is crude and can be misleading. In particular, what I want to talk about today is how the term "reform" has been hung over two very different schools of thought: one progressive and one conservative.

Progressives have been historically been wedded to a technocratic vision of "progress" and a belief that the right policies and programs can cure society's ills. Progressives have hailed school reform as the key to erasing the effects of poverty and ensuring social justice. They speak in terms of newly discovered rights (e.g., "education is the new civil right," "every child has the right to an 'effective' teacher"). And they adopt an ethos of "by any means necessary," remaining untroubled if their ambitions require dramatically expanding the federal role or the role of the courts. The progressive caucus dominates the ranks of school reformers. (If you're thinking, "Hold on, I can think of Republicans like this," well, that just shows you're paying attention. There's no rule that bars Republicans from having progressive tendencies.)

A conservative perspective is less convinced that the right education policies will fix the world and more attuned to the limits of social engineering and the risks of unanticipated consequences. It holds that schools can help provide students with knowledge, skills, and better lives--but doubts that schooling alone can "erase achievement gaps" or immanentize the eschaton. It is nervous about the energetic proclamation of ambitious new rights. And it rejects the "by any means necessary" ethos, knowing that federal and judicial involvement has done more to promote compliance, paperwork, and bureaucracy than to improve schools. (For those interested in a deeper explication, check out my essays "Our Achievement Gap Mania" and, with Andrew Kelly, "A Federal Education Agenda," or my chapter in the recent compendium Room to Grow.)

I think it goes without saying, I'm in the conservative reform school. Now, this wing of "reform" doesn't get a lot of attention. To be fair, there are not that many of us. I usually estimate that 90% or more of those in the world of "school reform" are Democrats and self-proclaimed progressives. Indeed, the desire of conservatives to find allies and raise funds in a left-leaning community has made it all too easy for them to wind up sounding a lot like progressives and abandoning simple principles to which they usually hold fast.

Up until the past few years, it was pretty hard to tell the two strands of reform apart. After all, the two schools agree on a lot. Both have long supported charter schooling, alternative teacher licensure, differentiated pay, overhauling tenure, Teach For America, and much else. There have always been some differences--Two Schools of "School Reform:" The Conservative and the Progressive :: Frederick M. Hess:

The Most Important Figure in School Reform We Never Talk About | Dana Goldstein

The Most Important Figure in School Reform We Never Talk About | Dana Goldstein:

The Most Important Figure in School Reform We Never Talk About

It’s the principal.

Check out my new piece at Slate:

There is good reason for reformers and policymakers to pay much more attention to principals. When McKinsey surveyed top teachers on what it would take for them to move to a higher-poverty school, they responded that the biggest draw, even more important than a raise, would be a respected principal who created a positive school environment.

What makes a principal great? Historically, school leaders served as building and personnel managers while teachers made classroom-level decisions mostly on their own. Now principals are expected to do their old managerial jobs and oversee instruction, too—what and how students are learning. An effective principal begins her job by clearly articulating a school’s mission, whether it is project-based learning, “no excuses”-style strict discipline, or a curriculum oriented around the arts. That vision provides intellectual coherence for teachers. The next step in effective school leadership is familiarity with the research on how children learn each subject. Great principals know how to help teachers build specific pedagogical skills, from creating classroom assessments that push beyond multiple choice to showing students how to back thesis statements in essays with evidence.

When an excellent principal is hired at a high-poverty school, time for teacher training and collaboration increases, student test scores rise by 5 to 10 points annually, and ineffective teachers begin to leave—yes, even under today’s often overly restrictive tenure policies. When a good principal departs, the progress unwinds and student achievement drops. In short, principals have a unique power to multiply the effects of good teaching and help close achievement gaps.

And just a reminder: The Teacher Wars goes on sale today!The Most Important Figure in School Reform We Never Talk About | Dana Goldstein:

School Reformers’ Pledge of Good Conduct | InterACT

School Reformers’ Pledge of Good Conduct | InterACT:

School Reformers’ Pledge of Good Conduct

SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

by David B. Cohen

David B. Cohen:

Larry Cuban has another great post here! I missed this when it first went online, but love the idea of a reformer’s pledge. This should go far and wide – not only to the think-tank crowd, researchers and punditry, but also legislators, school board members, journalists and editors, and even parents, voters, and the broader community.

Originally posted on Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice:

School reformers now (and in the past) are (and have been) divided among themselves. So often, they seek similar goals–students who are literate, can think clearly, have requisite skills and knowledge to enter and finish college or start a career, and contribute to the larger community– but split over which of the goals should have precedence and how to achieve the ones they prize.

Reformers fighting among themselves, of course, is hardly new. For generations, traditionalists have fought progressives over the purposes of schooling, what content and skills had to be taught, how teachers should teach, and how students should learn. Whether it was the 1890s, 1960s, or the 1980s, ruptures between school reformers occurred again and again (seehere, here, and here). And so it is today over how best to educate poor white and minority children, whether Common Core state standards are a boon…

View original 652 more words

Marie Corfield: An Open Letter to Star-Ledger Editorial Board Director Tom Moran

Marie Corfield: An Open Letter to Star-Ledger Editorial Board Director Tom Moran:

An Open Letter to Star-Ledger Editorial Board Director Tom Moran

(Note: This piece was co-authored by Ani McHugh, aka. TeacherBiz, and Mark Weber, aka. Jersey Jazzman, and is cross-posted on both their blogs.)

Dear Tom,

This week, you crossed a line.

Until now, your pieces in the Star-Ledger about Newark’s school system and the reorganization of the district have been ill-informed and reckless. You’ve ignored the warnings of teachers, parents, community leaders, researchers, and students, preferring instead to cling to recycled talking points crafted by those with scant little experience in education policy, but much to gain in profits.

You’ve paid a price: like your ridiculous attempt to walk back from your disastrous endorsement of Chris Christie, your continuing effort to support State Superintendent Cami Anderson while distancing yourself from the consequences of her catastrophic leadership has shredded any integrity you had left as a journalist. Any standing your newspaper had left as a champion of the people of Newark has also eroded: as with Anderson, no one in the city trusts you or the Star-Ledger’s editorial page anymore.

But as awful as your previous meanderings about Newark’s schools have been, at least you never had the bad taste to try to pawn off Anderson’s failures and your own poor judgement on to others. At least you never tried to make the case that the impending disaster of One Newark was the fault of anyone but the Christie administration, its appointed superintendent, and her enablers in government and the press.

This week, however, you crossed that line. We have tried individually in the past to get your attention to set the record straight to no avail (see all the links later in this piece). Therefore, we—professional educators with a combined total of seven degrees, a PhD in the works, and 38 years of teaching experience—who, along with countless others across this state, have stood against the illogical, faith-based, and racist education policies you regularly espouse for Newark from your position of influence, have come together to deliver you a message:

Shame on you, Tom Moran

Shame on you for sanctioning One Newark, a plan so controversial and discriminatory that it’s the subject of both state and federal civil rights complaints. Shame on you for ignoring and then blaming the people your newspaper is supposed to serve. Shame on you for refusing to educate yourself about the policies you endorse.

Why do you insist that educators must be held accountable for the sins of greed, and the failure of government to address generational poverty, while no one holds you, the editorial director of the state’s largest newspaper, accountable for the half-truths and misinformation you spread?

“Shame on you for refusing to educate yourself about the policies you endorse.”

Fact vs. Fiction

Fiction:

You claim: “At the same time, the city’s most successful charter school chains will take Marie Corfield: An Open Letter to Star-Ledger Editorial Board Director Tom Moran:

Shanker Blog » Research And Policy On Paying Teachers For Advanced Degrees

Shanker Blog » Research And Policy On Paying Teachers For Advanced Degrees:

Research And Policy On Paying Teachers For Advanced Degrees

Posted by Matthew Di Carlo on September 2, 2014

There are three general factors that determine most public school teachers’ base salaries (which are usually laid out in a table called a salary schedule). The first is where they teach; districts vary widely in how much they pay. The second factor is experience. Salary schedules normally grant teachers “step raises” or “increments” each year they remain in the district, though these raises end at some point (when teachers reach the “top step”).

The third typical factor that determines teacher salary is their level of education. Usually, teachers receive a permanent raise for acquiring additional education beyond their bachelor’s degree. Most commonly, this means a master’s degree, which roughly half of teachers have earned (though most districts award raises for accumulating a certain number of credits towards a master’s and/or a Ph.D., and for getting a Ph.D.). The raise for receiving a master’s degree varies, but just to give an idea, it is, on average, about 10 percent over the base salary of bachelor’s-only teachers.

This practice of awarding raises for teachers who earn master’s degrees has come under tremendous fire in recent years. The basic argument is that these raises are expensive, but that having a master’s degree is not associated with test-based effectiveness (i.e., is not correlated with scores from value-added models of teachers’ estimated impact on their students’ testing performance). Many advocates argue that states and districts should simply cease giving teachers raises for advanced degrees, since, they say, it makes no sense to pay teachers for a credential that is not associated with higher performance. North Carolina, in fact, passed a law last year ending these raises, and there is talk of doing the same elsewhere.

As we’ll see, the argument that we should not be granting teachers raises for advanced degrees is not without merit. It is also, however, based on a generalization that sometimes ignores some key variation by degree type and context, and the potential for harnessing these findings in policy.

Before discussing that, however, it bears reiterating that virtually all of the arguments to eliminate raises for advanced educational degrees are based on their association (or lack thereof) with test-based productivity measures such as value-added. Certainly, there is a strong case for assuming that value-added estimates do provide some signal of “true” teacher effectiveness, and for acknowledging that they should play a significant role in this discussion. But they are not the only measure that is available or relevant, and paying teachers for advanced degrees can also have other benefits, such as improving recruitment and retention. In addition, just from the perspective of common sense, it seems ill-advised simply to eliminate incentives for teachers to invest in their education.

Perhaps there is some empirically-backed middle ground here, even if we adopt the purely test-based approach assessing the value of awarding raises for advanced degrees. In general, it is true, as argued by advocates of Shanker Blog » Research And Policy On Paying Teachers For Advanced Degrees:

NYC Educator: No Comparison

NYC Educator: No Comparison:

It's Rating Time!

For several years now I've been writing about the junk science ratings to which we've been subject. I've gotten in shouting matches with people who thought it was a great thing that the principal's judgment would no longer dictate how we'd be rated. They gave examples of how the junk science could contradict the principal's opinion. I'm with another chapter leader who got a rating almost identical

2 7min

No Comparison

When I was very young, my mom decided to cook a tongue. I'm not sure what possessed her. I saw it, and said, "That looks like a tongue."

My mom said, "It is a tongue. It's a cow's tongue."

I said, "Well, I'm not gonna eat that." And I didn't.

The next day, my mom gave me a sandwich. "Is that good?" she asked. "Yeah, it is," I told her. "It's the tongue," she informed me, and I spit it out onto the plate. Afterward, we had a long discussion about it being the principle of the thing, and how I was on a strict no-tongue diet. Somehow we never saw eye to eye on this particular topic.

Last week, I was in Port Stanley, Ontario with my daughter. We were in a diner, and she ordered a grilled cheese sandwich. My wife had one too, and she gave me half. It was really very good. It was cheddar and Swiss cheese, and better than any grilled cheese sandwich I'd ever had before. I was fascinated because my daughter would never, ever order anything but American cheese. You know, it comes in that cellophane, and it has enough chemicals in it so it'll still be around when only cockroaches and Rudy Giuliani roam the post-apocolyptic world.

I can imagine Rudy and the cockroach army living forever on a diet of American cheese and Twinkies.

Anyway, only after my daughter ate the whole sandwich, commenting on how good it was, did I reveal the awful secret. I had learned from my mom's mistake. She was horrified, and had the audacity to compare this incident with that of the tongue. While I understand the parallels, it seemed a lot different to me.

I mean, the notion of eating tongue is far more gross than that of eatingNYC Educator: No Comparison:

The Testing Obsession and the Disappearing Curriculum | NEA Today

The Testing Obsession and the Disappearing Curriculum | NEA Today:

The Testing Obsession and the Disappearing Curriculum

September 2, 2014 by twalker
Filed under ESEA/NCLB Reform, Featured News, Top Stories

Latest News and Comment from Education