Witness the anger and bitterness

Here are two letters that appeared in response to my recent opinion piece in the Rochester Eccentric that called for a community dialogue on student behavior as it relates to drugs, alcohol, fighting, and theft.

Rochester Eccentric: Letters (10/16/08)

To put these letters in context and perspective, I’d encourage you to read my article again first (found by clicking here), and then read the letters.

I've spotlighted these letters because they demonstrate the bitter, reflexively defensive tone that too often obstructs civil dialogue on the thornier issues facing our schools.

I've inserted comments in the middle of their letters to illustrate how they’ve twisted things.

Keep in mind that the primary focus of my article was to call attention to the difficult, yet important issue of student safety and behavior regarding drugs, alcohol, and theft. The only thing I encouraged was a wider community dialogue. Yet for some unknown reason these parents seem to be fixated on discouraging video surveillance.

So, as you read these letters, ask yourself what sort of message are these parents trying to send to me by responding so angrily to my opinion piece? Are they saying that school safety and student behavior is fine, and doesn’t require any attention? Or are they saying, “Don’t mention this in public?”

==> Mike.

P.S. For the record, Ms. Thomasson was one of the speakers at the September 22 board meeting that is discussed in my opinion piece and the letters below.

---------------------------------------------------------

The real disconnect

In Mr. Reno's quest to install video surveillance in the Rochester Community Schools, [What quest is that? I think VS would be worthwhile, but I never once mentioned it my article.] he has misrepresented the facts and disrespected the school community. Data does not support his claim that video surveillance is needed in our schools. [What data? What claim?]

While Mr. Reno claims that there is a disconnect between the school community and reality, the disconnect is between Mr. Reno and the school community. He shows his disconnect when he refers to the building security strategy as merely pep assemblies promoting safety. [Exactly what strategy does Ms. Johnson believe is in place?]

Since Mr. Reno is totally lost when it comes to understanding our school community and how it works, I suggest he stick to his responsibilities as board member. [I believe safety is indeed a board responsibility.]

Melanie Johnson
Rochester Hills


Reno is wrong

I am writing in response to Mr. Reno's opinion piece in (the Oct. 5) Eccentric titled "Focus on facts in school safety debate."

In yet another effort to advocate for video surveillance, [Read my article… I advocated for a “reality check”, not video surveillance.] it is unfortunate that Mr. Reno failed to mention any of the other important items that are included on the list of more than $5 million of high-priority, unfunded items for the coming school year, including curriculum and technology updates and required maintenance of Rochester Community Schools' facilities. [Entirely unrelated to my opinion piece. It’s a completely different discussion, which I’ll explore soon.]

In his opinion piece, Mr. Reno belittled school culture-changing initiatives such as Challenge Day [False: I participated in one of these events, and clearly see benefit in them.] and presentations by nationally known diversity speaker Michael Fowlin [The board has never been invited to a school to hear him. Would love to go.] , by calling them "pep assemblies promoting safety." Well, he is wrong. [Never belittled them… in fact I mentioned they were a key component. What I clearly said was that they should not be the ONLY component.]

These programs are part of a district-wide strategy focused on prevention. [Exactly what strategy is that?] We do have pep assemblies at Rochester High School and they are awesome, but they are all about and only about school spirit!

But, speaking of school spirit, Mr. Reno dismissed public comments made at the Sept. 22, 2008, Board of Education meeting by Rochester High School parents and students, as merely "an admirable showing of school spirit." Either he wasn't listening or he didn't understand the comments that were made.

In response to remarks made by a police liaison officer at the Sept. 8 board meeting, that made every day seem like "Fright Night" at Rochester High, more than 30 students and about a dozen parents came out to tell the Board of Education and the public that Rochester High School is a safe place to go to school. [Nobody said it is not safe.]

No one said that there aren't problems. [Not true… several students said there were no problems. And more significantly, board members said that as high school parents they do not see these “situations”.] But as a diverse community of nearly 1,800 students, it is very similar to other high schools in our area, particularly when it comes to school safety issues. [The Deputies and I both said the very same thing.]

Mr. Reno is now asking for an exploration of safety and security facts, saying that our Rochester public schools are out of touch with reality. That is not the case. In fact, we have had frank discussions about safety and security concerns. [Who exactly is “we”? These discussions have not happened at the school board level, which was my entire point.] A parent and community forum sponsored by the Rochester PTA Council called Rochester Unplugged addressed many of these issues. It included a panel discussion with members of law enforcement, our judicial community and the media. [Why is it OK for the PTA Council to have a discussion, but not a Rochester board member?] The District Student and Staff Safety and Security Committee, of which I was a member, did discuss and take into consideration school safety facts before making safety and security recommendations to the Board of Education in 2007. [That is incredibly misleading. The superintendent has clearly said that the purpose of that committee was to consider how to protect students against aggressive attacks on the building, and specifically did not address student behavior issues like drugs, alcohol, or theft in any way whatsoever.] But those recommendations were made by the committee without regard to budget constraints.

Given current budget constraints on our general fund and a limited fund balance, the Board of Education will need to make some difficult choices in the coming months. Mr. Reno believes the board could choose to do them all, meaning fund all of the $5 million of high-priority unfunded items in the next school year, including more than $1 million in video surveillance equipment. [That is completely wrong in several ways. I don’t agree that the list is complete, nor do I believe the district needs to do the complete video recommendation. Ms. Thomasson is simply making this up.]

I personally do not believe it would be fiscally responsible to fund them all by spending down our fund balance in such uncertain times. The Board of Education must prioritize these items and I believe the items that directly impact student learning should be at the top of the list.

Sue Thomasson
Rochester Hills

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

School safety and student behavior is a complicated issue, so let's ignore it.

Are there safety issues at your school? Are your children tempted at school with drugs or alcohol? What is being done to combat these realities? These sure seem to be reasonable questions for parents to ask.

For school boards, they're not only reasonable questions, but they're prudent questions that should be routinely asked.

An interesting exercise for any parent might be to send their school board an email and ask them when they last held a meaningful discussion on the matter. What was the date of the meeting? What statistics and data sources were reviewed? What is the strategic plan for safety, and what is used to measure success and progress?

While some might certainly be on top of it, I suspect that most give this important subject a casual glance at best. They might direct you to the state report they file, which is largely useless and innacurate.

Some boards fail to ask at all.

And some boards go as far as to resist and obstruct efforts to learn more.

This clearly seems to be nothing short of gross negligence.

School safety is a complicated topic, and one that I think does not get enough attention.

While statistically most children are very safe from physical harm at schools, keeping them that way requires diligent effort. And physical security is only part of the issue; schools must also help to protect against drugs, theft, and other misconduct which is not only illegal, but is also a learning distraction.

Rochester has been superficially discussing school safety for several years – several long years – after grappling with threats of a “Columbine-style” attack were scrawled on a bathroom wall.

Trying to secure the buildings is an issue, with modern technology such as video cameras and card-swipe locks. But it’s more than that… it’s also about helping to change the culture in schools. These are all important and essential elements in what should be a comprehensive and integrated security plan.

It’s not unlike what we face in American society today.

Oddly enough, the biggest challenge has NOT been trying to debate action plans.

Instead, it’s been on ongoing battle to simply assess the situation in district buildings.

Finally, building administrators and police liaison officers – the “boots on the ground” in high schools – were allowed to share their first hand perspectives, only to have their comments twisted and character attacked.

It was shocking to see the steadfast refusal by some to even consider that high schools have issues with drugs, alcohol, fights, and theft.

From my perspective, cameras and locks have taken a backseat to the larger problem of education. Not of educating the students… but of educating the adults.

I wrote about this issue in this opinion piece:

Rochester Eccentric: Focus on facts in school safety debate (10/05/08)

What remains unclear to me is whether this is a head-in-the-sand issue, or whether this is a don’t-publicly-tarnish-our-image issue. In any case, it's hardly a responsible approach.

(As an interesting side note, there is new federal legislation -- HR2352 -- that just passed the house which is designed to aid the effort of responsible school boards to enhance safety in schools. Ironically, it made it's way to the Senate on September 22, 2008, the same day that the Rochester board seemed to bury it's efforts to enhance safety.)

I’ve pasted below the full text of my op-ed in case the link doesn’t work

------------------------------------------------

Focus on facts in school safety debate

A few short years ago threats of violence against a Rochester school interrupted learning, distracted administrators, and cost taxpayers plenty in police overtime.

In response, the district convened a school safety committee, which recommended various measures, including security technology. The board considered - and even budgeted for - some security items, only to rescind the funding last month.

Basically the board's come full circle since the 2005 threats, and its primary building security strategy now consists of pep assemblies promoting safety.

While the lack of a comprehensive safety-security plan and no planned investment in security technology is a worry, perhaps the greater concern is how the board approached this complex issue, almost looking for reasons to deny that high schools face difficult challenges.

To better understand the need for security technology, I requested that the Oakland County Sheriff's School Liaison program - whose deputies work in district buildings - be permitted to share their professional perspectives with the board.

At the Sept. 8 board meeting the deputies - flanked by building principals - carefully explained that fights occasionally occur in high school; fights that have even spread into the greater community after school. In an upscale community like Rochester, it came as no surprise that kids bring expensive Coach purses, iPods, and cell phones to school, and they get stolen. Vandalism can be expensive. And while some adults prefer not to discuss the presence of drugs and alcohol in schools, they are indeed present.

With these experiences as a backdrop, the board then heard how security technology could help their efforts.

There was no suggestion that the district is facing any sort of "crisis."

On the contrary, great care was taken to emphasize that Rochester has safe schools, a great student population, and a hard-working supportive staff. One officer stressed, "I spend 90 percent of my time with 10% of the students who cause 90% of the problems."

Their comments simply reinforced the undeniable reality that some high school teens occasionally make poor choices.

I later obtained the Sheriff's crime statistics, and the superintendent shared the district's disciplinary action statistics. This data confirms that high schools in Rochester - like schools everywhere - must contend with student misconduct and crime. Certainly not in epidemic proportions, but enough to warrant diligent attention.

Furthermore, information from Rochester Area Youth Assistance (RAYA) confirms our community does indeed face challenges with teenage drug and alcohol abuse. In fact, a few years ago the group received a federal grant to help their efforts because Rochester's teen substance abuse is above average.
After hearing deputy input, and reviewing the statistics, I'm reassured and proud of the law enforcement team that serves our schools. Our city governments - and the taxpayers - deserve a sincere "Thanks!" for supporting the Police Liaison program.

But then the Sept. 22 board meeting saw an obviously organized effort to refute the deputies. A few speakers implied the deputies' comments about crime in schools were a matter of opinion rather than fact.

The rebuttals defended the honor of a school, as if the public admission of crime was somehow an "insult." The showing of school spirit was admirable, but counterproductive because it left the impression that Rochester schools are problem-free, with no safety and security needs.

This disconnect from reality is a huge concern.

After hearing this, I suggested a community forum to discuss school safety and security. I proposed inviting the public, law enforcement, RAYA, and our distinguished district court judges, who collectively represent a broad cross-section of insights on the magnitude of these issues, and how they impact our community. The forum would dispassionately focus on facts, and ultimately create a community-based plan to better serve our children.

I thought this idea would be well received by board members, particularly those who had initially expressed concerns after hearing the deputies.

However, I was rebuffed with a clear reminder that other board members have high school-aged children, while I do not, and they "just haven't experienced" these "situations" in Rochester schools. Apparently anecdotal information trumps data from the professionals.

Such arbitrary and preposterous reasoning succinctly illustrates this board's all-too-common approach to discussion, debate, and problem-solving.

The fact that some board members' children aren't exposed to drugs, fights or theft is a wonderful testament to the hard work of district staff and law enforcement professionals. But statistics suggest other Rochester children face different realities, and the board has a responsibility to reach decisions based on the needs of all children.

Safety and security challenges are hardly limited to Rochester. For example, Royal Oak's superintendent, recognizing the impact drug use has on high school learning environments, has proposed confidential random drug testing, with results forwarded directly to parents. William Beaumont Hospital - a wonderful corporate citizen - acknowledges the magnitude of the problem and has offered to help them.

Public discussion of these serious issues creates the perfect opportunity to engage parents, and encourage them to become part of the solution. Pretending they don't exist, downplaying them, or attempting to bury them with public relations tactics, simply furthers the notion that public schools are out of touch with reality.

Let the school board know if you believe further discussion on this matter would be worthwhile.

Personally, I believe exploring the facts would be a valuable experience for all of us, regardless of whether our own children have been directly impacted.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Image and Appearance… Education’s top priority?

I repeatedly hear parents in suburban communities brag about their schools.

“It’s the reason I moved to this area”, they say.

“I agree they’re good, but why do YOU think they’re good?” I ask.

The responses almost always point to test scores.

The problem is that in most cases people don’t understand what the scores really mean. It’s not that they are incapable of understanding… it’s that schools rarely provide enough meaningful information.

I wrote about this in an article here:

Detroit News: Many students aren't ready for college (09/10/08)

Schools (and the state) report test scores, but don’t really help parents to interpret them. Oftentimes they’ll report their relative rankings, comparing themselves to neighboring schools, county averages and state averages.

While being “above average” or “among the best” might be an accomplishment, it really says nothing about whether a school is preparing kids for college and it’s really not a meaningful goal.

What it does do is present a positive image. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that… unless it’s the ONLY thing presented. Image might be everything in Hollywood, but it should be secondary in education.

Parents can be excused for not understanding how to parse and interpret the data, but school boards cannot. Schools have an obligation to be candid with parents. And sharing the data – good or bad – creates an opportunity to start (or continue!) a dialog with parents.

It’s a chance to explain the importance of rigor, and relevance of taking challenging classes. It's an opportunity to reinforce the importance of engaging in their child's education.

School boards have – or should have – data on the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks, and identify specific ways to increase the percentage of students that meet the benchmarks. Establishing those types of goals, and reporting progress on them would be much more helpful to parents than knowing whether they are “keeping up with the Joneses.”

Also, for clarification, it appears that I incorrectly associated the ACT with The College Board in the print edition when I said, “According to the College Board…” That quotes that followed came from ACT’s material. The College Board is responsible for Advanced Placement courses, which I frequently write about, and they are not associated with the ACT. It was corrected online. Sorry to both organizations!

Here is the full article in case the link doesn't work:

---------------------------------------------

Many students aren't ready for college
Make it easier for parents, taxpayers to gauge whether kids are prepared
Mike Reno

The results are in for the Michigan Merit Exam, which includes the ACT -- a national college entrance exam that's considered a reliable predictor of college success. Rather than take a comprehensive look at the results, most high schools will spend the next month reassuring the public that they're doing a splendid job.

Oftentimes it's an illusion, inviting rebuttal and reinforcing the growing concern that schools are out of touch with reality.

Schools need support. But also they need to admit -- to themselves and to parents -- that there's much to do.

The common approach presents parents with their school's average scores and rankings, and offers no explanation of how to interpret them. Schools atop the rankings are dubbed "high-performing," while everyone else will be reassured their district is "above the state average." These comforting descriptions are designed to make parents feel secure that all is well.

Any mention of disappointing results will include official comments about the difficulty of the test and how parents need to be patient because the test is new. "This is only our second year" or "We need more time" are the usual rallying cries -- as if the idea of preparing kids for college is new.

And no education press release will be complete without the "inadequate funding" potshot aimed at Lansing.

This posturing does nothing to drive school improvement or help our children.

Consider the 299 schools that can boast that their average ACT composite score beats the state average of 18.9. Does that mean those schools are doing a good job of preparing students for college? Who knows? Beating the state average has little bearing -- if any -- on college admission or success.

Knowing how many students met the nationwide average ACT score for incoming college freshmen would be more meaningful. The average freshman score for many universities in Michigan is between 21 to 23 with the highly selective universities accepting freshmen with averages pushing 28 to 30.

Just 60 high schools in Michigan -- out of 722 -- saw their average student achieve a score of 21 or higher.



Another meaningful goal might focus on the ACT college readiness benchmarks. According to the ACT folks, they represent "the minimum ACT test scores required for students to have a high probability of success in ... college courses," such as math, science and English." They are "empirically derived based on the actual performance of students in college."

Mind you, a "high probability of success" means earning a "C" or better in an entry-level college class. Few schools find their average student meeting these benchmarks.

Increasing the percentage able to perform to these minimum levels would be a great goal.

Unfortunately, the state doesn't report the percentage of students meeting these benchmarks. Knowing that data -- especially knowing how many students meet all four benchmarks in English composition, college algebra, biology and the social sciences -- would help parents better evaluate their schools.

Consider that Rochester Community Schools ranks among the top in the state by many measures, and 95 percent of its graduates are college-bound. Yet less than half meet all four benchmarks.

That may mean remedial courses in some subjects -- at the going college tuition rate -- or disappointing outcomes for students who aren't prepared for the rigor of college coursework even though they're admitted.

Really, aside from being self-serving, there's little value in trumpeting the fact that a school is "above the state average" or "top tier."

In fact, such public relations tactics can be harmful because some parents may easily be lulled into complacency.

Parents instead need a wake-up call from their schools. Transparent and informative achievement reporting could be an effective way to get parents more involved in their children's education.

The leadership needs to start with local school boards, which tend to set weak goals and have shallow communications. This is unlikely to change until parents and taxpayers demand candid assessments from these boards and hold them accountable for the results.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

The 2008 Algebra Revolution

This is a follow-up to the posting on "Parents lobby to raise the education bar and face hurdles "
The district publicly reported that 135 children opted to take the more rigorous Algebra 1 Course.

I wrote about it in the an opinion piece:

Oakland Press: Parents right to stand up to board (09/05/08)

(by the way, I did't write the headline! I would've called it "Parents stand up for increased rigor!")


Here is the full article, in case the link doesn't work:

------------------------------------

In late August — days before the start of school — some Rochester middle school parents connected to press for a critical curriculum change … and won!

This display of parent resolve gives hope that attitudes about education are changing.

These parents recognized the importance of insisting their eighth-graders take Algebra 1, setting higher expectations for their children than those set by the district. Hopefully their actions will inspire other parents, and send a clear signal to educators that it’s time to raise the bar.

The story begins two years ago when State Superintendent Mike Flanagan led the effort to reform high school graduation requirements. It the time, the state expected but a single class in government and one in gym/PE. Requirements have since been updated to what are now among the highest minimum standards in the nation.

Michigan high school students must now take four years of math and English, and three years of science. Graduates must at least complete Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2. The state wisely defined the content of each class, preventing schools from circumventing the requirements with inappropriate class names.

The Rochester math curriculum was adjusted to meet new state guidelines, and parents discovered students in the Class of 2013 — incoming eighth-graders — who had taken pre-algebra last year were scheduled to take a “new” prealgebra course instead of moving to algebra 1.

Parents felt their children were being shortchanged. They began calling schools, and contacting the school board. The board president thought they’d be satisfied with answers like; “It will take a couple years to complete the transition from our current math classes to the new classes.”

The district went on to say the “new” pre-Algebra was basically equivalent to the “old” Algebra.

Pressure built as nearly 100 parents attended a board meeting to voice their concerns.

Fortunately, the district superintendent was listening and responded admirably. The district still maintains Algebra 1 might be a stretch for some students, but will give them the opportunity to take it as long as parents take the initiative to “opt in.”

This innovative approach places responsibility squarely back in the hands of parents. Parental insistence on greater rigor allows teachers to insist on a stronger learning partnership with those parents.

Algebra 1 in eighth-grade should not be viewed as “accelerated” in Rochester, or anywhere else. It puts students on track to take Algebra 2 by tenth-grade, thus fully preparing them for their junior year ACT college entrance test, which includes a math component that assesses a significant number of Algebra 2 topics.

It affords students the opportunity to take AP Calculus by their senior year, better preparing them for college.

Some Rochester officials seemed willing to support the status quo by arguing the “old” curriculum would’ve gotten these students to pre-calc by their senior year, and the “new” curriculum — with Pre-Algebra in eighth-grade – would accomplish the same thing.

In fact, it was stunning to hear that the average student in Rochester won’t take Algebra 1 until ninth grade and will only get to pre-calc by their senior year.

By comparison, California has new state requirements that all eighth-graders take Algebra 1. And some studies show that of students who take calculus, more take it as high school students rather than as a college freshman.

Establishing Algebra 1 as an eighth-grade standard, as well as encouraging more graduates to study calculus are relevant and achievable goals that should be embraced by a top-tier district like Rochester. Actually, they’re appropriate goals for Michigan schools statewide.

It’s truly inspiring to see parents send a clear message to school boards that they have higher expectations. Let’s hope it’s contagious!

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Parents lobby to raise the education bar and face hurdles

This lengthy rant spotlights a front-line math skirmish that just played out in Rochester. It clearly shows the difficulty in trying to improve public education in Michigan. Identifying new curriculums is really the simple part of the battle. Educating and changing the attitudes of parents and teachers is the tougher part.

Just before the opening of school, the Rochester superintendent published an op-ed,

Rochester Eccentric: As school year dawns, recommit to educational excellence (08/31/08)

Mr. Pruneau advises:

“If you are a parent in the Rochester school system, I would ask you to make school the number one priority for your child. In the global society of today, we need to raise the bar for all of our students, but that means students will have to spend more time about school, take harder courses than they may want (that Advance Placement course is worth the extra effort), and don't let a day go by not asking your child what is going on in his/her school life.”

Heeding that call, mothers and fathers of 8th grade students did just that, requesting that the district place their children in a more rigorous math class, and thus preparing them for higher-level science and math classes down the road. The superintendent was responsive to parents and allowed the option.

I wrote about it in an opinion piece that ran today:

Oakland Press: Parents right to stand up to board (09/05/08)

(by the way, I did't write the headline! I would've called it "Parents stand up for increased rigor!")

The issue centers on basic Algebra, and the adopted changes in the Rochester math curriculum designed to increase rigor and, and align with state requirements.

The Algebra taught by Rochester last year is apparently closer to what the state calls “pre-algebra”. Students who took Rochester’s pre-algebra last year appear to be caught in what one mother dubbed a “math opportunity gap”, in which their skills fall somewhere between the “new” Pre-Algebra and the “new” Algebra 1.

The question is whether students should take the new pre-algebra, which will repeat some material, or if they should move ahead to Algebra 1, which is likely be a more challenging course.

In light of these changes, and hoping to expand their children's learning opportunities, parents asked for options, and the superintendent supported that idea.

However, it seems everyone didn’t get the superintendent’s “raise the bar” memo.

Eighth graders came home the first few days of school, telling parents they were being advised that the new Algebra 1 class would be WAY over their heads. Students told parents, and parents told other parents, creating a sea of mixed messages in play.

A packed informational meeting designed to share details unfortunately deisintegrated into a confusing “fright-night”. One math teacher – not part of the official program – took the floor and shared her opinion that, “Unless your child prefers math homework over soccer, this class is not for them.”

Other teacher comments I heard included:

* “Nobody but the true math geeks take calculus as a junior.”

* It’s “crazy” that kids might “be forced to take a math class at a University in their senior year”.

One teacher suggested that reaching pre-calc by a student’s senior year was “good enough”.

Again, these comments were not part of the official presentation, but they were effective in discouraging and scaring parents. And while their opinions might be based on legitimate concerns, it would’ve been much more professional to present them in an objective, and unemotional manner.

For it’s part, I wish the district had offered a more clear and concise explanation of the differences between these various algebra curriculums. Better yet, the district – and objective math teachers – could’ve offered a plan showing how much additional learning support these students would need if they step up to the challenge of Algebra 1, as well as a list of how much overlapping content they’d face with the "safer choice" of the "new” pre-algebra.

Absent a lack of clarity, and influenced emotionally by the unofficial generalization that “this math is SO hard” and "will set your kids up for failure", some parents left more confused, frustrated, and unsure than ever.

Incredibly, some even questioned why the more rigorous course would even be OFFERED!

Relevant thoughts notably absent from the discussion that night:

* There was nothing to balance the message that “your child is ill-prepared and likely to fail”.

* There was no mention of the fact that there are online resources available with these new texts that can provide additional support.

* There was no mention of the fact that Rochester does have some outstanding math teachers that are more than capable of teaching the new curriculum.

* There was no discussion about how neighboring districts have plenty of seventh and eighth graders taking “true” Algebra 1.

And while Rochester may not have many juniors taking AP Calculus, it’s not uncommon at all in districts such as East Lansing, Bloomfield Hills, Forest Hills, Birmingham, and Troy. And, it’s commonplace in schools like Marion, Brother Rice, Cranbrook, Country Day, and Greenbriar.

Let me be clear: I’m in no position to evaluate which math class is best for any individual child, and I’m not trying to “sell” anyone on anything. But it is very discouraging to see emotional appeals sabotage the genuine interest parents had in seeking more rigor and opportunity for their children. My purpose in spotlighting this issue is to demonstrate one of the biggest challenges facing public education today: motivating students, parents, and teachers to reach higher.

It would’ve been inappropriate for me to speak out at the meeting. But what I would’ve liked to have pointed out is that we live in competitive and challenging times, which undeniably requires higher standards and expectations. We need to make sure students are prepared for that challenge. Other districts – many other districts – successfully shepherd students through the very same “new” math curriculum adopted by Rochester, and begin with Algebra 1 in middle school. Rochester children will be competing with them – as well as children from China and India – for seats at Michigan’s colleges and universities.

I simply cannot understand why some believe Rochester students and teachers are not up to the task.

Again, let me be clear: when asked, the only advice I’ve ever given is that parents talk with their teacher and look for clear, objective, unemotional explanations of why the teacher believes this specific student is prepared – or not – for Algebra 1.

If all they're told is, “It’s hard because I said it’s hard”, then perhaps parents might consider looking at this important decision in the same way they would a proposed medical procedure or treatment. In medicine, we get a second opinion – from someone other than the doctor’s partner – hoping to get a complete picture. It’s prudent, and is not disrespectful to your doctor.

After the fear-mongering I heard the other night, a second opinion might be a good idea.

A former teacher wrote to me and shared what they thought would’ve been a much more effective message from teachers:

"Hey, it's a transition to a totally new textbook. There are differences in the two texts.

If your child takes the Pre-Algebra before the Algebra I, then we can assure you that while there will be repeated material, that your child will get adequate and thorough coverage of all the different material before advancing to Algebra I. If your child has struggled, takes longer to pick up on a concept, is easily frustrated by math, is involved in activities that preclude lengthy homework assignments, if your child has no intention of advancing beyond the minimum required Algebra II in high school, or is not willing to put forth a reasonable effort, then this is the best option for you. Realize the highest your child can achieve is pre-calculus.

If your child opts for Algebra I, then understand they will be expected to work at an accelerated rate to cover both the material that is unique to the new textbook series and also the Algebra I material. I as a teacher will do everything to support and teach your child and make them successful. This will not be a class for slackers. Your child will need to work. We will be going at a faster rate but it will give them the opportunity to achieve AP Calc by senior year. But I will always be available to your child and your child's success will be my top priority."

Advice like that, coupled with a meaningful discussion of an individual child’s specific math skills, might be just what the doctor ordered!

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

$13 Billion is not enough?

The Eccentric roared about “unfunded mandates” in this editorial:

Eccentric: Good ideas merit adequate funding (08/10/08)

Based on the language, I’ve got to wonder which education official was the ghostwriter.

The editorial suggests that any requirements the state places on schools should be considered an unfunded mandate. What they fail to point out is that the state provides over one-third of the state budget – some $13 billion dollars – to schools. Are these requirements really unfunded?

The editorial takes an unsubstantiated swipe at the migration to all-day kindergarten as another example of an unfunded mandate. What they fail to point out is that schools already receive the full state grant per pupil for kindergarten students, while only providing a half-day of service. Unfunded mandate?

The editorial claims these mandates come “at a time when state aid already has fallen behind increased costs.” They fail to point out that schools are responsible for managing their own budgets, and allow employee costs to balloon out of control.

If the Eccentric does not believe schools get enough money, then exactly how much does the Eccentric think schools should get? How much should it increase each year? Articles like this only further the notion that no amount of money is ever enough.

I’ve pasted the article below in case the link doesn’t work.

------------------------------------------------------

Good ideas merit adequate funding
August 7, 2008

State officials come up with a great idea - so great, they figure every school district in the state should implement it. Do it or else, they say - and, by the way, don't bother asking us for any financial help in paying for it.

The resultant dilemma is called an unfunded mandate.

It's happened time and again, so no one should be surprised that the state Legislature has taken up an all-day kindergarten program that could cost districts plenty.

In her state of the state message, Gov. Jennifer Granholm called it a "simple step" that would make a difference. But simple by whose definition?

While many districts in the area are moving toward that goal, still others know that the mandate will require more space and more teachers at a time when state aid already has fallen behind increased costs.

The problem of unfunded mandates doesn't stop there.

Recently, the state Court of Appeals ruled that the governor and Legislature violated the Headlee Amendment by requiring school districts to compile data on student progress without reimbursing them for the cost.

The issue could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

"The (state) constitution is very specific" on requiring mandates be funded, Michael Adamczyk said of the ruling. The assistant superintendent for business in the Troy district is also president-elect of the Michigan School Business Officials group.

The frustrating part, he said, is that even though the state has lost the argument in the past, it still puts up a fight.

For some districts with current software, computers take the brunt of the work. But other districts, Adamczyk said, have to either buy new software or update what they currently have.

Districts "don't argue the merits" of gathering data, he added.

Nevertheless, time is money, whether it be in gathering data or fighting a lawsuit.

It not only makes sense to fund mandates, it's the law.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

"Self-Esteem" and Multiculturalism trump Rigor and Self-Discipline in Schools Today

The following editorial makes a powerful statement about the damage being inflicted by the “feel good” culture of schools today:

The Chronicle of Higher Education: How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science (08/08/08)

At 1800+ words, it’s an investment of time, but it’s worth it.

Let me say that I don't believe all teachers and all schools are infected with the malady discussed. I know there are many professional educators who will agree with Mr. Wood.

I also believe parents are responsible for part of this problem. Those teachers who do try to instill self-discipline and insist on hard work often face resistance from parents, who are more concerned that homework and studying will conflict with soccer practice. Or, rather than “hang tough” and insist on studying, the parents will devote their energy to pressuring the teachers to scale back.

I also think some teachers are frustated by administrators who won't back them when challenged by parents.

What can someone do to fix this? Begin by paying attention to who you elect to your school board. They buck stops with them. They allow this.

==> Mike.


Here is a 500-word version for those who are short on time:

Mr. Wood points to “the incapacity of American education to inspire children to take an interest in science and motivate young adults to follow though”.

“Success in the sciences unquestionably takes a lot of hard work, sustained over many years.” But the self-discipline needed comes from the culture of our schools, and schools today simply do not emphasize the value of hard work and self-discipline.

“Rather, (our schools and culture) lead students who look upon the difficulties of pursuing science to ask, "Why bother?"

“At least on the emotional level, contemporary American education sides with the obstacles. It begins by treating children as psychologically fragile beings who will fail to learn — and worse, fail to develop as "whole persons" — if not constantly praised. The self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for arduous intellectual ascents aren't among them. What the movement most commonly yields is a surfeit of college freshmen who "feel good" about themselves for no discernible reason and who grossly overrate their meager attainments.”

“The intellectual lassitude we breed in students, their unearned and inflated self-confidence, undercuts both the self-discipline and the intellectual modesty that is needed for the apprentice years in the sciences.”

“We rank the manufacture of "self-esteem" above hard-won achievement, but we also have immersed a generation in wall-to-wall promotion of diversity and multiculturalism as being the worthiest form of educational endeavor; we have foregrounded the redistributional dreams of "social justice" over heroic aspirations to discover, invent, and thereby create new wealth; and we have endlessly extolled the virtue of "sustainability" against the ravages of "progress." Do all that, and you create an educational system that is essentially hostile to advanced achievement in the sciences and technology.”

“The science "problems" we now ask students to think about aren't really science problems at all. Instead we have the National Science Foundation vexed about the need for more women and minorities in the sciences.”

“A society that worries itself about which chromosomes scientists have isn't a society that takes science education seriously. In 1900 the mathematician David Hilbert famously drew up a list of 23 unsolved problems in mathematics; 18 have now been solved. Hilbert has also bequeathed us a way of thinking about mathematics and the sciences as a to-do list of intellectual challenges. Notably, Hilbert didn't write down problem No. 24: "Make sure half the preceding 23 problems are solved by female mathematicians."”

“Obsession with the sex and race of scientists is just one more indication of how American higher education has swung into orbit around the neutron star of identity politics. Talk to recent college graduates and you are likely to hear something like: "Asian students are just better at science and math." That is a verbal shrug, not a lament.”

(OUCH! So very true!)

“Our record on high-school math and science education is particularly troubling. International tests indicate that American fourth graders rank among the top students in the world in science and above average in math. By eighth grade, they have moved closer to the middle of the pack. By 12th grade, our students score near the bottom of all industrialized nations.”

I've pasted the whole article below in case the link doesn't work.



-------------------------------------------------

How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science
Article tools By PETER WOOD

In March, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, testified before the House Committee on Science and Technology about the abject failure of American schools, colleges, and universities to prepare students for advanced study in the sciences.

Well, that's not exactly what he testified. The purpose of his trip to the Hill was to impress on Congress the need for more H-1B visas. Those are the visas extended to highly trained experts for specialized jobs. Microsoft, said Gates, can't find enough top-quality computer scientists who are U.S. citizens or already have the right visas. But, he added, a solution is at hand: America's first-rate graduate schools have a wealth of brilliant scientists and engineers in the pipeline. A large portion of them, however, are foreign nationals here on student visas, and are destined to return home after they graduate. Wouldn't it be smarter for our nation to give them H-1B visas so they could stay here and put their training to work helping American companies?

Gates has a compelling point — largely because the shortage of Americans holding or pursuing advanced degrees in fields like computer science defies conventional market explanations. The average annual salary in the field is more than $100,000. Meanwhile, we have a robust supply of high-IQ baristas and college graduates with jobs that a generation ago would not even have required a high-school diploma.

So while Gates didn't make the point in so many words, his call for more H-1B visas was really testimony to the incapacity of American education to inspire children to take an interest in science and motivate young adults to follow though. He noted that 60 percent of the students at the top American computer-science departments are foreign-born.

Gates is hardly the first to sound the alarm. Back in 2003, the National Science Board issued a report that noted steep declines in "graduate enrollments of U.S. citizens and permanent residents" in the sciences. The explanation? "Declining federal support for research sends negative signals to interested students." That seems unlikely, in that the alleged decline hasn't dampened the enthusiasm of students from all around the world for our country's graduate programs.

The precipitous drop in American science students has been visible for years. In 1998 the House released a national science-policy report, "Unlocking Our Future," that fussily described "a serious incongruity between the perceived utility of a degree in science and engineering by potential students and the present and future need for those with training."

Let me offer a different explanation. Students respond more profoundly to cultural imperatives than to market forces. In the United States, students are insulated from the commercial market's demand for their knowledge and skills. That market lies a long way off — often too far to see. But they are not insulated one bit from the worldview promoted by their teachers, textbooks, and entertainment. From those sources, students pick up attitudes, motivations, and a lively sense of what life is about. School has always been as much about learning the ropes as it is about learning the rotes. We do, however, have some new ropes, and they aren't very science-friendly. Rather, they lead students who look upon the difficulties of pursuing science to ask, "Why bother?"

Success in the sciences unquestionably takes a lot of hard work, sustained over many years. Students usually have to catch the science bug in grade school and stick with it to develop the competencies in math and the mastery of complex theories they need to progress up the ladder. Those who succeed at the level where they can eventually pursue graduate degrees must have not only abundant intellectual talent but also a powerful interest in sticking to a long course of cumulative study. A century ago, Max Weber wrote of "Science as a Vocation," and, indeed, students need to feel something like a calling for science to surmount the numerous obstacles on the way to an advanced degree.

At least on the emotional level, contemporary American education sides with the obstacles. It begins by treating children as psychologically fragile beings who will fail to learn — and worse, fail to develop as "whole persons" — if not constantly praised. The self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for arduous intellectual ascents aren't among them. What the movement most commonly yields is a surfeit of college freshmen who "feel good" about themselves for no discernible reason and who grossly overrate their meager attainments.

The intellectual lassitude we breed in students, their unearned and inflated self-confidence, undercuts both the self-discipline and the intellectual modesty that is needed for the apprentice years in the sciences. Modesty? Yes, for while talented scientists are often proud of their talent and accomplishments, they universally subscribe to the humbling need to prove themselves against the most-unyielding standards of inquiry. That willingness to play by nature's rules runs in contrast to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along insouciance that characterizes so many variants of postmodernism and that flatters itself as being a higher form of pragmatism.

The aversion to long-term and deeply committed study of science among American students also stems from other cultural imperatives. We rank the manufacture of "self-esteem" above hard-won achievement, but we also have immersed a generation in wall-to-wall promotion of diversity and multiculturalism as being the worthiest form of educational endeavor; we have foregrounded the redistributional dreams of "social justice" over heroic aspirations to discover, invent, and thereby create new wealth; and we have endlessly extolled the virtue of "sustainability" against the ravages of "progress." Do all that, and you create an educational system that is essentially hostile to advanced achievement in the sciences and technology. Moreover, those threads have a certainty and unity that make them not just a collection of educational conceits but also part of a compelling worldview.

The antiscience agenda is visible as early as kindergarten, with its infantile versions of the diversity agenda and its early budding of self-esteem lessons. But it complicates and propagates all the way up through grade school and high school. In college it often drops the mask of diffuse benevolence and hardens into a fascination with "identity."

That could be a good thing if the introspections were enriched by professors who could show students where Plato or Shakespeare had touched such depths, or who could startle them by showing where Hobbes or Tocqueville had seen them coming. But in a curriculum dissolved in the sea of minutiae and professorial enthusiasms, the opportunity to pass through moody introspection and back into the sturdy world of real people grows rare.

The science "problems" we now ask students to think about aren't really science problems at all. Instead we have the National Science Foundation vexed about the need for more women and minorities in the sciences. President Lawrence H. Summers was pushed out of Harvard University for speculating (in league with a great deal of neurological evidence) that innate difference might have something to do with the disparity in numbers of men and women at the highest levels of those fields. In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, "Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering." Officials of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education are looking to use Title IX to force science graduate programs to admit more women. The big problem? As of 2001, 80 percent of engineering degrees and 72 percent of computer-science degrees have gone to men.

A society that worries itself about which chromosomes scientists have isn't a society that takes science education seriously. In 1900 the mathematician David Hilbert famously drew up a list of 23 unsolved problems in mathematics; 18 have now been solved. Hilbert has also bequeathed us a way of thinking about mathematics and the sciences as a to-do list of intellectual challenges. Notably, Hilbert didn't write down problem No. 24: "Make sure half the preceding 23 problems are solved by female mathematicians."

Obsession with the sex and race of scientists is just one more indication of how American higher education has swung into orbit around the neutron star of identity politics. Talk to recent college graduates and you are likely to hear something like: "Asian students are just better at science and math." That is a verbal shrug, not a lament. The reward of 16 years of diversiphilic indoctrination turns out to be a comfort zone of rationalizations.

In his testimony, Bill Gates did more than glance at the failures of American schooling. Our record on high-school math and science education is particularly troubling. International tests indicate that American fourth graders rank among the top students in the world in science and above average in math. By eighth grade, they have moved closer to the middle of the pack. By 12th grade, our students score near the bottom of all industrialized nations. As a result, too many of them enter college without even the basic skills needed to pursue a degree in science or engineering.

And Gates has backed his words with money. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, he reported, has spent $1.9-billion to "establish 1,124 new high schools and improve 761 existing high schools." The Gates-supported schools have as "common elements" such anodyne features as "high standards," "relevant, challenging course work," and "high levels of support." Gates also supports "great transparency and accountability."

The sheer magnitude of the effort could make a dent, the way Andrew Carnegie's libraries opened the world of books to millions of Americans. I applaud the philanthropy and hope Gates's STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) initiatives in Texas, Ohio, and other states bear fruit. One way culture changes is through the efforts of determined reformers, and Gates qualifies.

On the other hand, nothing in his testimony suggested recognition that American education's cultural imperatives play a role in diminishing the importance of science and technology in the eyes of the great majority of students. I don't take it as a tragedy if our top graduate programs fill up with ambitious and talented students from abroad; if we need to issue more H-1B visas to sustain our high-tech industries, let's do it with dispatch. Welcoming some of the world's most educated, talented, and ambitious scientists to our shores only strengthens the nation. But the apathy of so many homegrown American students to the intellectual challenges of science is something else — something that building schools, multiplying computers, and ginning up STEM programs won't touch.

Bill Gates may not be the right person to tell us how to restore that mixture of awe, admiration, sheer ambition, delight in meeting difficulties, and stubborn curiosity — the patient exuberance — that draws students into the adventure of science. A few of our students catch it despite the preoccupations of their teachers and their textbooks. But what to do about the larger problem? I'm starting my own Hilbert's list.

Peter Wood is executive director of the National Association of Scholars.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Don't Dumb Down Michigan!

What a powerful op-ed by Susan J. Demas!

Detroit News: Pols should stop trying to dumb down Michigan (07/31/08)

It includes a surprisingly strong "personal responsibility" quote from Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. If only he'd hold public education to that same standard!

Ms. Demas makes an articulate case, and you should let your representatives in Lansing know you support her points.

I've pasted the article below in case the link doesn't work.

---------------------------------------------------------------


Thursday, July 31, 2008

Pols should stop trying to dumb down Michigan
Susan J. Demas

It wouldn't be a campaign stop without the requisite hard-luck story. And Stephanie Baker stepped up to the plate at Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama's June town hall meeting in Taylor.

She wanted to know what Obama would do to help her daughter maintain her financial aid even though her grade point average had slipped.

What was his bleeding-heart liberal response?

"There is no excuse. She's got to keep her grades up. She's got to work harder. I'm willing to bet she's probably watched some TV in the past couple of months, went to the movies, hung out with her girlfriends," Obama said. "She's got to keep her grades up so she can keep her financial aid."

Amen to that.

Perhaps Stephanie's met Cindy Timmons, whose high school freshman son just flunked five classes. Cindy trekked down from Grayling to Lansing last month to plead with a state House panel to spike tougher class requirements so her boy could graduate.

Nobody told her to hire a tutor. Nobody told her the cold, hard truth: That it really doesn't matter if her son drops out or graduates high school -- he'll be looking at minimum-wage jobs and double-digit unemployment either way. Increasingly, the only road to a middle-class life is a college degree -- or two or three.

Three years ago, a commission chaired by Lt. Gov. John Cherry issued a stellar report on the state of education in Michigan and what to do about it. Among the 19 recommendations was doubling the number of college graduates by 2015 and beefing up high school graduation requirements to prepare kids for the knowledge-based economy.

The world and its economy are changing. The Mitten State can change with it or our students can be left behind. I suggest that Stephanie and Cindy make the Cherry Commission report required reading for themselves and their children.

Fortunately for them, there are pandering politicians armed with quick fixes. God bless election years.

State Reps. Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch, and Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, are on mission to muck up Michigan's education system even more, as though slashing higher education spending for years hasn't done enough.

Their motto for the state? Dumb it down.

The GOP-led Legislature admirably passed in 2006 some of the toughest high school graduation requirements in the country, which included two years of foreign language, four of English and three of math. Kids who take high-level math in high school, for instance, are much more likely to go to college.

Sheltrown says it's time to give up already and hand out consolation prizes to the noncollege-bound, an easier "general diploma curriculum." That and a couple bucks will buy you a cup of coffee (though not at Starbuck's).

He amusingly passed out a pop quiz on Algebra II to lawmakers, which most flunked. Well, duh. Anyone who watched the budget debacle last year knows that math isn't legislators' strong suit. Let's set the bar a little higher for our children, folks.

While Sheltrown tries to hobble our high schools, Jones wants to stunt our world-class universities, especially the University of Michigan.

Jones tells his own sob story about a rural teacher whose students just can't get into the U-M.

"That's not fair," cries Jones, an alleged personal-responsibility conservative, who should probably chat with Obama.

Under his legislation, public universities would be required to accept the top 10 percent of all Michigan high school classes. In other words: Let's reward mediocrity.

When Michigan's college graduation rate is an abysmal 25 percent and college remedial classes are already crammed, this is the last thing we need. Our 15 universities are some of the only bright spots in our state, clouded by 8.5 percent unemployment and a decaying auto industry.

Universities compete on a global scale. If we dilute the talent pool in Michigan schools, those in California, Texas and India will inevitably gain.

Let's face it: Some high schools are better than others and do a superior job of preparing students for college success. The beauty of the Michigan Merit Curriculum that Sheltrown is trying to dismantle is it attempts to hoist all schools to a high standard, which in turn, increases students' odds of being accepted to U-M and other colleges.

Look, there are no easy answers to Michigan's educational quandaries. Anyone who tells you differently is trying to get elected.

Susan J. Demas is a political analyst for Michigan Information & Research Service.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Operational Amateurism

While this post may appear on the surface to be of local interest, I thought it was worth posting to a larger audience because it’s so typical of the operational amateurism practiced by too many school boards throughout the year.

It will continue to be exceedingly difficult to solve the complex challenges facing public education today until local school boards become more professional in the way they conduct discussions and make decisions.

This story involves an appointment, but as you read it consider how this could just as easily be about a budget decision, or a multi-million dollar construction bid, or a complex curriculum review.

The Rochester school board recently appointed a local citizen to fill a vacant board seat. The man chosen is a retired Colonel and West Point graduate, who will undoubtedly bring valuable skills to the board. His written career credentials were impressive, and he did a fine job during his interview. He offers thoughtful perspectives on some of the issue I believe are important, and I'm eager to hear more from him. I voted to support his appointment, and I don’t vote “AYE” unless I mean it.

“West Point – a school that has produced a man to meet every emergency that has ever confronted the county.” Col. R. Ernest Dupuy, March 12, 1952

The condition of public education certainly warrants a man of this caliber!

My frustration lies not in the appointment, but with the school board’s method of conducting business.

The board cobbled together an applicant "narrowing process" at a public meeting, only to then tweak it via email – out of the public eye. I had concerns about the Open Meetings Act and raised them, only to be ignored. Subsequent requests for public discussion, as well as my request to finalize the process before the final interviews, were completely ignored.

The board proceeded to conduct hours of interviews with the candidates, grilling them about budgets, curriculum, facilities, and so on. Both the questions and the answers were thoughtful, and I fully expected that the board would recess in order to consider the answers provided by the eager candidates (I had 14 pages of notes to review.)

But the board didn't take a single minute to reflect upon the interviews. In fact, there was absolutely no discussion by the board about the answers given. You’d think some collaborative effort to compare and contrast the responses would’ve been in order, given the importance of the decision.

Instead, the board quickly leapt to tear strips of paper into makeshift ballots, and board members were instructed to rank the candidates – in secret.

It was a fait accompli at that point, almost making one wonder whether the decision had already been made prior to the meeting.

Afterwards, board members were reluctant to explain the reasoning behind their rankings, and offered no explanation of the criteria used to evaluate interview responses. However, they were willing to give speeches about the personality features they found appealing in the person selected. Based on their comments, I'm left to conclude that the interview questions had no bearing on the decision.

Of course the district’s video system – which could’ve recorded and broadcast the proceedings in an open way -- was down for those few days… a pure coincidence I’m sure. None of the local media was present to watch, and of the 15 people in the audience at least half were district employees.

So while I believe this board has a strong and valuable new Trustee, it’s hard to say that it happened BECAUSE of the board, and not DESPITE the board. The community is quite fortunate it had such a strong stable of applicants.

Again, my objective here is to illustrate how boards operate. Consider how a decision-making process like this might apply to almost any agenda item. Currently, a topic will appear on a public agenda on a Thursday night; the board meets the following Monday, hears 15 minutes of presentations, has almost no discussion, takes no time to think about the presentation or the comments from other board members, and then provides a unanimous (or near unanimous) approval – every single time.

And oftentimes it occurs under the watchful eye of only a small handful of people.

Any hope of improving our schools must start with a more engaged public, and absolutely must include a more professional approach to decision making.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

MEA Misses the Mark in it's Rebuttal

I recently wrote an opinion piece advocating that we find a way to better reward those teachers who excel. I wrote, “Ideally, the Michigan Education Association -- the state's largest teachers union -- would be part of the solution.”

Last week the MEA gave some indication of how they felt:

Detroit News: Pay system rewards right traits for teachers (07/21/08)

In it, MEA President Iris Salters advocates for maintaining the status quo. Well, actually, she advocated for more money for everyone.

Her point was that knowledge and experience are the most important factors to consider in compensating teachers. I agree those are certainly important factors, but only if they are effectively applied and produce results. The current system doesn’t consider whether a teacher is having an impact, and doesn’t reward those who are.

Ms. Salters also raised a common misconception about merit pay systems when she said they favor, “teachers whose students receive the highest test scores”. Were that the case, she’d have a point to back her opposition. But effective merit pay systems are designed to reward the annual GROWTH in student achievement for students of all learning levels, not just the top students.

Furthermore, despite what Ms. Salters might think, merit pay is not just about scores. I specifically said, “Subject matter and teaching environment also deserve consideration, all in an effort to reward teachers who are truly making a difference in areas where they're most needed.” The expression, "Teaching environment" is oftentimes the politically correct way of referring to economically disadvantaged schools, which would include “the neediest children”.

Her rebuttal also used the tired old MEA line about reportedly low teacher salaries. On the surface, the salary comparisons she included might indeed suggest there is some imbalance nationally, but her figures only address annual salary, and ignore work schedules, health benefits and retirement. She cites national figures, which do not reflect the fact that Michigan has among the highest paid teachers in the nation. And she only references starting salaries; my point was not to look at where salaries start – or where they finish for that matter – but was instead meant to examine and challenge how the salaries change over time. I still believe that those teachers who are better at their jobs deserve more compensation and should get it faster than those who are only average – or worse.

We’ll save the detailed salary discussion for another time. For now, I’d suggest that those really interested in the facts review the government’s Bureau of Labor statistics. It’s a wealth of information, and can be found here: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_MI.htm

Finally, Ms. Salters notes, “… in some cases where alternative pay systems have been jointly agreed to, they've collapsed because of insufficient resources to support the rewards the system deems worthy.” If the example she cited from decades ago was indeed “dismantled because the funds weren't available”, one could easily accept that the failure was more likely due to the historically poor structure of education pay systems. School boards generally lack financial acumen, and history shows time and time again that they are willing to approve unaffordable labor agreements. There is not a problem with the concept of merit pay; there is instead a problem with the way it may have been poorly designed and implemented.

An effective system would first look at what money is available, and then distribute it based on who is doing the best job.

I really think the MEA is missing the mark when it attempts to advocate for the general mass of teachers, and does so at the expense of the truly strong and successful teacher.

Mike.

I’ve pasted below the article in case the link doesn’t work

--------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal
Pay system rewards right traits for teachers

While I was glad that Mike Reno noted many teachers deserve higher compensation for the work they do to educate future doctors, lawyers and presidents, I disagree with his criticism of the fairest, best understood and most widely used approach to teacher compensation -- the salary schedule ("Increase teacher pay in manageable way," July 10).

The salary schedule rewards things that make a difference in teacher quality -- knowledge and experience. A well-constructed salary schedule rewards classroom experience, promotes continued professional learning, and promotes both retention and recruitment of high-quality staff.

Alternative pay systems, such as those where pay increases or bonuses are paid to teachers whose students receive the highest test scores, unfairly punish educators who work with some of the neediest students, including children at risk of dropping out of school and children with special needs.

The fundamental problems with teacher compensation in Michigan -- and America -- are low teacher pay and lack of investment in education.

The teaching profession has an average national starting salary of $30,377, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. Meanwhile, college graduates who enter fields with similar training and responsibilities receive higher salaries. Beginning computer programmers, for example, get $43,635. Registered nurses earn $45,470.

The structure of teacher pay is a local issue decided through collective bargaining between school boards and teachers. But in some cases where alternative pay systems have been jointly agreed to, they've collapsed because of insufficient resources to support the rewards the system deems worthy.

In Tennessee, a merit pay system was enacted with union support in the 1980s. A decade later, it was essentially dismantled because the funds weren't available to reward the thousands of excellent educators in the state.

To make any pay system work, the investment in education has to be up to the task.

Iris K. Salters

President, Michigan

Education Association

East Lansing

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Restructure Michigan Public Education; Scrap the Step System of Pay

One of the most frustrating practices I’ve seen in education is the pay system.

I wrote about it in this opinion piece:

Detroit News: Increase teacher pay in manageable way (07/10/08)

I’m told that you-know-what will freeze over before schools move away from the step system. Perhaps so, but the practice is damaging to the profession, and changing it would be worth the fight.

With this system, teachers earn the same, regardless of whether they work hard or not. They earn the same, regardless of whether they’re effective or not. They earn the same, regardless of what subject they teach.

For the first part of a teacher’s career – while they’re still gaining experience and perfecting their craft – their pay increases substantially.

Then, once they’ve got some significant experience in the classroom, and are presumably hitting their stride, the pay spigot closes. A teacher is likely to be limited (on average) to inflationary pay increases for the rest of their career.

It probably served a useful purpose decades ago, but it’s now obsolete and belongs in an education museum.

I’ve pasted a copy of the article below (along with the salary chart created by the Detroit News) in case the link doesn’t work.

-------------------------------------------------------

Increase teacher pay in manageable way
Scrap unsustainable salary hikes for better reward system

Teachers' pay has followed a single salary schedule -- or "step system" -- in which years of teaching experience and college credits alone determine pay raises. Yet shifting expectations, limited funding and increased accountability in education are challenging the viability of this outdated pay system in Michigan.

Under the current system, teaching professionals -- many of whom deserve higher compensation -- are held hostage in a bizarre pay structure that ignores their skills or effectiveness. It artificially rockets up salary early in their career, only to see it stall once they're seasoned.

The step system isn't good for schools either. It can cause district payrolls to grow faster than annual funding increases, leaving districts little choice but to lay off teachers, increase class size or make other instructional cuts.

While the history of teacher salaries might explain why this pay system was established decades ago, it's time to scrap the steps now.

Each year, teachers take one step up the pay scale until reaching the top, typically in 10 years.

The only opportunity for salary increases comes from post-graduate college work. Teachers move to new pay scales -- and new steps -- by earning more college credits or degrees. Most obtain a master's degree within their first 10 years of teaching.

In Rochester, the starting pay for a teacher is $37,697. Top-of-scale is reached after 10 years, and this year it's $83,470 for those with a master's degree.

During the past 10 years, the average contract increase in Rochester has been a meager 2.5 percent (inflation during that period averaged 2.6 percent). However, that average contract increase doesn't actually reflect the pay increases for all teachers or the payroll increase for the district.

A newly minted teacher hired in 1997 was paid $29,771. His or her 2007-08 salary (with a master's degree) would be $83,470. Over 10 years, the average compounded salary increase was an impressive 10.9 percent.

Meanwhile, the seasoned and experienced teacher -- a 10-year veteran already making the top-of-scale $65,918 in 1997 -- would be earning the same $83,470 (plus a few other stipends). The average salary increase for this teacher was just 2.5 percent -- not quite on par with inflation.

This one-size-fits-all system is fundamentally unfair. It's also unsustainable as a business model. Maintaining this system is irresponsible.

A revamped system should be based on measurable metrics such as student achievement and mentoring, as well as principal and peer review.

Subject matter and teaching environment also deserve consideration, all in an effort to reward teachers who are truly making a difference in areas where they're most needed.

A fiscally responsible system would distribute available money in the form of pay increases -- even bonuses -- based on meaningful elements, rather than the number of years of service alone.

Florida's schools are trying a new plan, as well as schools in Houston and Denver. As with all new concepts, the startups have been challenging and subject to criticism -- primarily from teacher unions. But the concept is sound, and Michigan needs similar forward thinking.

Local boards in Michigan are ill-suited to the task and are no match for powerful teacher unions that are resistant to change.

Ideally, the Michigan Education Association -- the state's largest teachers union -- would be part of the solution. It could help to secure voluntary implementation at the local level. If the MEA refuses to participate in a new compensation system, then perhaps the state should unilaterally intervene.

Changing the compensation system in Michigan's public education is necessary, not only for financial reasons, but also to reward those teachers that make a difference.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

A timely example of Tenure absurdity

I wrote about tenure a few weeks ago. Many of the rebuttal comments made in response to my blog attempted to point out "the fairness" of tenure, and how it's all about simple "due process".

Well, here is a real-life example.

Grand Rapids Press / MLIVE - West Ottawa Public Schools holds its first teacher tenure hearing (6/24/08)

(Thanks to the Michigan Education Report for it's coverage!)

A teacher gives students the answer to a test -- before the test is taken. The teacher -- Karl Nadolsky -- "... contends there is educational theory supporting his methods with struggling students." The distict decides to draw a line, and "accuses him of giving his students answers on a biology test to cover up his ineffectiveness in the classroom." They attempt to fire him, and the tenure laws -- and the MEA -- step in.

Hardly seems fair that the district needs to fight this. And consider the “due process” cost:

While awaiting the hearing to contest his dismissal, Nadolsky was paid his full salary of $69,712 and received his full benefits package of $16,198, according to information obtained by The Press through the Freedom of Information Act.

West Ottawa also shelled out $23,577 for a long-term substitute to cover Nadolsky's classes from Thanksgiving to the end of the academic year.

In addition, the school district spent $17,915 in legal fees through June 5 to evoke the tenure charges.

Some argue the board should've just paid a settlement. Perhaps we can look at that as a form of merit pay. Cheat children out of an education, and receive a financial reward.

Some are also likely to argue that perhaps the teacher should keep his job, and be counseled on this poor teaching practice. Sorry, but this seems to be a pretty fundamental part of teaching, and if this teacher -- with some 36 years of experience – needs to be reminded not to give advance answers to a test, then it’s time to pack it up.

Another alternative according to one board member – himself a former teacher – is “to assign an ineffective teacher to duties outside the classroom.” It's sad that school officials are willing to suspend or expel students for bad behavior and poor judgment, but those same officials hold educators to a different – and lower – standard.

Bravo to the board for pursuing what sure appears to be the right course of action.

These tenure laws need to be revised. This case also serves as another reason that we need to reform Michigan’s goofy tort laws, so that the district could recoup the costs it incurred in fighting a frivolous hearing.

I’ve pasted below the entire article in case the link doesn’t work.

---------------------------------------------------------

West Ottawa Public Schools holds its first teacher tenure hearing
Posted by Kym Reinstadler The Grand Rapids Press June 24, 2008 21:14PM

HOLLAND -- What does it take to fire a tenured teacher who doesn't want to leave?

West Ottawa Public Schools is about to find out.

The first-ever tenure hearing in the district's 50-year history begins today as veteran teacher Karl Nadolsky, 58, fights to keep his job.

The district accuses him of giving his students answers on a biology test to cover up his ineffectiveness in the classroom. Nadolsky disputes that, according to board members, and contends there is educational theory supporting his methods with struggling students. He is fighting the school board's vote in January to fire him, asking a state tenure judge to review his case.

Tenure hearings are relatively rare because a buyout often can be negotiated for less money, attorneys say. Only about 50 each year are held statewide and it takes an average of 10 1/2 months to resolve one, according to the State Office of Hearings and Rules.

"We don't want him back in the classroom," said school board President Randy Schippers, a Holland lawyer. "Now, we have to follow the process the state devised to try to make that happen."

The hearings are run like a trial, with lawyers for both sides presenting evidence today, Thursday and Friday. Nadolsky, like most teachers, requested his hearing be closed to the public.

The witness lists are said to include many current and former West Ottawa students, who will be called to testify before a state administrative law judge about what happened in their classroom.

The district's attorney, Barbara Ruga, will not disclose her strategy because of the request for privacy. Fil Iorio, Nadolsky's attorney sponsored by the Michigan Education Association, declined to comment.

The district likely will present copies of a multiple-choice test on evolution that Nadolsky gave in October to students repeating biology because they had failed the class before. The correct answers were indicated because they appeared in italic, enlarged or bold-faced type, according to an administrative report made to the school board earlier this year.

That report further alleges Nadolsky did not intervene when classmates began to harass the student who blew the whistle by telling his guidance counselor about the test.

Michigan teachers usually earn tenure within four years and then can be fired only for serious problems, such as abusing students, sexual misconduct, substance abuse or bad teaching.

Schippers said the West Ottawa board ultimately was not t willing to offer Nadolsky -- who with 36 years experience could have retired with full benefits -- a settlement to avoid a tenure hearing, although "we hear buyouts are the typical way to make a tenured teacher go away."

Only teachers who are convicted of a felony or who have court-imposed bond conditions that prohibit contact with minors, forfeit full salary and benefits during a tenure procedure, Ruga said.

While awaiting the hearing to contest his dismissal, Nadolsky was paid his full salary of $69,712 and received his full benefits package of $16,198, according to information obtained by The Press through the Freedom of Information Act.

West Ottawa also shelled out $23,577 for a long-term substitute to cover Nadolsky's classes from Thanksgiving to the end of the academic year.

In addition, the school district spent $17,915 in legal fees through June 5 to evoke the tenure charges.

"Fiscally, I'm conservative, so I can't buy this," said Bill Bloemendaal, a 17-year member of the West Ottawa board who was the lone vote against firing Nadolsky. "This is a process a school district cannot afford."

Bloemendaal, who was a West Ottawa High School teacher for 39 years before being elected to the board, said he believes it is cost-effective for the public purse to assign an ineffective teacher to duties outside the classroom.

Few types of employees are guaranteed their full salary and benefits by law while contesting dismissal, but Schippers said he understands why the law treats teachers differently.

"A teacher facing tenure charges can't just go out and get another teaching job," Schippers said. "As hard as it is to pay a teacher who's not in the classroom, you have to understand the difficult situation the teacher is in while the board's decision is being contested."

The judge will have 60 days after testimony concludes to issue a written recommendation to the five members of the governor-appointed Michigan Tenure Commission on whether there is sufficient evidence to dismiss Nadolsky.

Either party can appeal the judge's decision to the tenure commission, which reviews transcripts of the hearing and summaries submitted by attorneys to affirm or overturn the decision.

Thirty days after the time for a final appeal lapses, the state posts the resolution on the Michigan Department of Education's Web site, often the only public acknowledgment of the matter, according to the department's communications office.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Stop the Hand Wringing

WOW!

Columnist David Brooks hits it on the head here:

New York Times: Obama, Liberalism and the Challenge of Reform

Almost every paragraph is packed with quotable stuff!

But what I see as the heart of the matter is this: Good intentions alone don’t get the job done. Reform, by its very nature, will lead you to challenge, frustrate, and even anger those who like things just they way they are. Education is chocked-full of hand wringers that want to see things improve, but are afraid to ruffle feathers.

Per Mr. Brooks:

But when you look at the actual proposals Obama offers, he's doesn't really address the core issues. He's for the vast panoply of pre-K and after-school programs that most of us are for. But the crucial issues are: What do you do with teachers and administrators who are failing? How rigorously do you enforce accountability? Obama doesn't engage the thorny, substantive matters that separate the two camps.

He proposes dozens of programs to build on top of the current system, but it's not clear that he would challenge it. He's all carrot, no stick. He's politically astute -- giving everybody the impression he's on their side -- but substantively vague. Change just isn't that easy.

Obama endorses many good ideas and is more specific than the McCain campaign, which hasn't even reported for duty on education. But his education remarks give the impression of a candidate who wants to be for big change without actually incurring the political costs inherent in that enterprise.

Read the article! It’s short, and worth your time. I've included the whole piece below, in case the link doesn't work.



---------------------------------------------------


New York Times: Obama, Liberalism and the Challenge of Reform
Op-Ed Columnist
By David Brooks

Is Barack Obama really a force for change, or is he just a traditional Democrat with a patina of postpartisan rhetoric?

That question is surprisingly hard to answer. When you listen to his best speeches, you see a person who really could herald a new political era. But when you look into his actual policies, you often find a list of orthodox liberal programs that no centrist or moderate conservative would have any reason to support.

To investigate this question, I looked more closely into Obama's education policies. Education is a good area to probe because Obama knows a lot about it, and because there are two education camps within the Democratic Party: a status quo camp and a reform camp. The two camps issued dueling strategy statements this week.

The status quo camp issued a statement organized by the Economic Policy Institute. This report argues that poverty and broad social factors drive high dropout rates and other bad outcomes. Schools alone can't combat that, so more money should go to health care programs, anti-poverty initiatives and after-school and pre-K programs. When it comes to improving schools, the essential message is that we need to spend more on what we're already doing: smaller class sizes, better instruction, better teacher training.

The reformist camp, by contrast, issued a statement through the Education Equality Project, signed by school chiefs like Joel Klein of New York, Michelle Rhee of Washington, Andres Alonso of Baltimore as well as Al Sharpton, Mayor Cory Booker of Newark and experts like Andrew Rotherham, the former Clinton official who now writes the Eduwonk blog.

The reformists also support after-school and pre-K initiatives. But they insist school reform alone can make a big difference, so they emphasize things the status quo camp doesn't: rigorous accountability and changing the fundamental structure of school systems.

Today's school systems aren't broken, the reformers argue. They were designed to meet the needs of teachers and adults first, and that's exactly what they are doing. It's time, though, to put the interests of students first.

The reformers want to change the structure of the system, not just spend more on the same old things. Tough decisions have to be made about who belongs in the classroom and who doesn't. Parents have to be given more control over education through public charter schools. Teacher contracts and state policies that keep ineffective teachers in the classroom need to be revised. Most importantly, accountability has to be rigorous and relentless. No Child Left Behind has its problems, but it has ushered in a data revolution, and hard data is the prerequisite for change.

The question of the week is: Which camp is Barack Obama in?

His advisers run the gamut, and the answer depends in part on what month it is. Back in October 2005, Obama gave a phenomenal education speech in which he seemed to ally with the reformers. Then, as the campaign heated up, he shifted over to pure union orthodoxy, ripping into accountability and testing in a speech in New Hampshire in a way that essentially gutted the reformist case. Then, on May 28 in Colorado, he delivered another major education speech in which he shifted back in a more ambiguous direction.

In that Colorado speech, he opened with a compelling indictment of America's school systems. Then he argued that the single most important factor in shaping student achievement is the quality of the teachers. This seemed to direct him in the reformist camp's direction, which has made them happy.

But when you look at the actual proposals Obama offers, he's doesn't really address the core issues. He's for the vast panoply of pre-K and after-school programs that most of us are for. But the crucial issues are: What do you do with teachers and administrators who are failing? How rigorously do you enforce accountability? Obama doesn't engage the thorny, substantive matters that separate the two camps.

He proposes dozens of programs to build on top of the current system, but it's not clear that he would challenge it. He's all carrot, no stick. He's politically astute -- giving everybody the impression he's on their side -- but substantively vague. Change just isn't that easy.

Obama endorses many good ideas and is more specific than the McCain campaign, which hasn't even reported for duty on education. But his education remarks give the impression of a candidate who wants to be for big change without actually incurring the political costs inherent in that enterprise.

In Washington, Mayor Adrian Fenty has taken big risks in supporting a tenacious reformer like Rhee. Would President Obama likewise take on a key Democratic interest group in order to promote real reform? We can hope. But so far, hope is all we can be sure of.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......