K12 Reformer - Mike Reno

Candidate Ethics

2011-10-07T11:41:00.003-05:00

I wrote an article that ran earlier this week:

Detroit News: Big money helps teacher unions stack elections (10/04/11)

For those involved with school board politics, none of this will come as a surprise. But for those unacquainted with the MEA... welcome to the rabbit hole.

A reasonable rebuttal to the article will question whether teachers are citizens and taxpayers too, and whether they have the right to advocate for a candidate they support.

Yes, as individuals, they most certainly do.

The difference is whether the union should get involved. They are the organization responsible for negotiating contracts. I think there is a clear conflict of interest when you help get someone elected, only to sit across the table from them weeks later and bargain a contract.

==> Mike.

I have posted the article below, in case the link does not work.

Last Updated: October 04. 2011 3:32PM
Commentary

Big money helps teacher unions stack elections
by Mike Reno

From Wisconsin to Ohio, the pendulum is swinging away from union dominance of government, back to a focus on taxpayers and citizens.

But this isn't just a remote national conflict; the struggle is happening in local communities throughout Michigan, and merits attention this November.

Look no further than your local school board election to examine union influence in government.

Michigan's largest teachers union, the MEA, works diligently to insure it is represented on both sides of the bargaining table. They conduct statewide "Elect Your Boss" rank-and-file training classes, and the MEA-PAC (Political Action Committee) is one of the wealthiest and most powerful lobby committees in Lansing.

State campaign finance records show that the MEA-PAC gives generously to school board candidates. Individual teachers and local union PACs contribute money as well. But more importantly, locals furnish boots on the ground.

The locals organize phone banks and literature drops, where teachers will contact parents and ask them to support the recommended candidates.

This union stranglehold over local school boards has been so effective that our state government has been compelled to intervene, passing new oversight and regulation of our public schools and how they compensate teachers.

Consider this example from Rochester.

I still have a copy of the "mobilize and motivate" letter widely distributed in the last Rochester school board election, signed by the president of the local MEA unit.

In this call to arms, she writes, "We need all bodies at the polls… We believe we can work with the four declared (school board) candidates…"

And boy, did they work with them.

The newly elected Rochester Board of Education, all seven being union-backed, dealt with the worst economic crisis in our generation by laying off learning consultants and media assistants, while giving salary increases and bonuses to the district teachers. In that same year, they raised the local debt millage by 30 percent.

Of course, the trustees will deny that the union support influenced their decisions, and will point to token concessions in the last contract.

Yet they remain silent on why they continue to increase salaries and benefits year after year in the face of declining revenue and deficit budgets.

Most people are astounded this kind of union and trustee relationship is even legal, but it is, and repeats itself every election cycle.

Just recently, the MEA local issued its bi-annual summons for this year's crop of board candidates to appear before them, hat in hand, to seek its "recommendation" and all of the benefits that accompany it.

Fortunately, we see signs that the pendulum is swinging. Candidate Jeremy Nielson published a letter in which he politely declined the MEA invitation. Nielson says he "wants to earn the endorsement and respect of each and every teacher based on the merits of his candidacy," but will not seek the approval of an organization that he will ultimately bargain with as a trustee.

Contrast this with two of the other candidates, who themselves are members of a teachers union, one of whom actually wrote a book on union involvement in the public sector.

Rochester is the example, but this isn't just a Rochester issue. These dramas play out in most of the 500-plus school districts across the state. The voting public remains largely unaware of this union stamp on the ballot box.

Given that local school board trustees collectively spend one-third of the state budget — some $15 billion, with 85 percent going to union jobs — the public must face this situation head-on if public education is to remain sustainable for future generations.

This will be a watershed election year as union special interests battle for the hearts and minds of voters.

Watch these local school board elections, for they will be the canary in the coal mine, and will signal whether union dominance of elections — and tax dollars — is becoming history in Michigan.

The Diane Ravitch / Alter / Brooks Debate

2011-07-07T08:24:00.007-05:00

Education Historian Diane Ravitch is at the center of a dust-up that has been swirling around for a month now.

I've collected a series of articles that can help to give a flavor of the reform debate. For a better taste... follow this on Twitter (I'm on as @K12Reformer).

I'm not going to comment on it for now... there is plenty of reading below!

This chapter began with a New York Times opinion piece by Diane Ravitch (@DianeRavitch)

New York Times: Waiting for a School Miracle (05/31/11)

Jonathan Alter (@JonathanAlter), formerly of Newsweek, and now with Bloomberg, writes:

Bloomberg: Don’t Believe Critics, Education Reform Works (06/03/11)

The debate raged on the blogosphere for a month, and included a blog posting by Matthew Yglesias (@MattyYglesias) that has yet to be answered:

ThinkProgress: What Does Diane Ravitch Think We Should Do To Improve Education In The United States? (06/23/11)

The debate really intensified with this piece by Martin Brooks:

New York Times: Smells Like School Spirit (06/30/11)

Jonathan Chait (@JonathanChait) adds to the discussion:

The New Republic: David Brooks Is Slightly Too Nice To Diane Ravitch (07/02/11)

Valarie Strauss (@ValerieStrauss) attempts to minimize / neutralize the rebuttals:

Washington Post: ‘Ravitch Rage’ — cause, symptoms, treatment (07/05/11)

(Funny comment made on the Strauss article: "Oh, when I saw "Ravitch Rage" I just assumed it was the case of rabies Ravitch has seemed to develop over the past ten years.")

From my perspective, the rebuttals to Ravitch are not an illness, they are the antidote!

Anyway, Ravitch goes on to respond here:

New York Times: Letter to the Editor (07/05/11)

There are numerous teacher blogs that bash Brooks/Alter/Chait, etc, and numerous "reformer" blogs that comment on Ravitch. If you find'em, post'em in the comment section below.

Interesting debate, for sure!

==> Mike.

Two Steps forward, One Step Back.

2011-07-07T08:10:00.003-05:00

Here's a follow up to a post I made in May, 2010, (found here) that addressed my concerns with dropping the Valedictorian / Salutatorian awards. The video tells it all; people comment to the school board, and the board responds in muted silence.

The Rochester Community Schools Board of Education eventually created a level of awards that makes sense. Honors are awarded based on GPA, ACT Score, and AP participation. I love it!

Two steps forward!

But the, then one step back: they took away the award for the very top achievers.

I write about that here:

Oakland Press: Schools wrong to drop top honor student designations (06/14/11)

Here is the full text of the article, in case the link does not work:

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

Schools wrong to drop top honor student designations
Published: Tuesday, June 14, 2011
By Mike Reno

Tis the season of graduation, and the Oakland University Meadowbrook amphitheater will be filled every night with high school commencement ceremonies.

Watch ’em closely this year, so that you can get a glimpse of an endangered species.

Many schools are ending the practice of recognizing the valedictorian and salutatorian. In fact, they are not only ending the practice of honoring those top students, they are even eliminating all “relative performance indicators,” such as class rank.

This does not just impact those few “eggheads” that earned perfect scores in every class. It’s bigger than that. Consider the message this misguided action sends to our children about drive, self-discipline and achievement.

It puts scholarship dollars at risk. But more importantly it speaks to the very core of how your school board views academic achievement — and the message isn’t pretty.

Rochester schools just changed its academic recognition policy and will abandon the honors for the highest achievers. They have replaced it with a “grouping” of kids who meet certain criteria such as overall GPA and participation in Advanced Placement Classes.

It’s like the honor roll — on steroids.

Creating this award is great and students who achieve to these levels absolutely deserve recognition. But these “groups” could’ve been an honor supplement, it didn’t need to replace top honors.

Why take away the brass ring? Picture the Olympics, where a “precious metal pin” is awarded to the top three athletes instead of gold, silver and bronze.

School boards offer excuses to explain why they have decided to stop honoring the top achievers.

To rank high in a class, and be at the “top,” the school must rank the students. Imagine the ego damage to those who are not at the top, or rank near the bottom.

Some note that the valedictorian honor has become diluted now that it’s common to have more than one from the class. And some will argue that kids with really good grades may stop taking challenging classes for fear of lowering their GPA and losing their shot at the title. But those concerns can be addressed by giving additional weight to challenging classes. An “A” in an advanced placement class might be worth five points instead of 4. This way, the student who earns a 4.0 taking basket-weaving classes won’t tie with the one who earns a 4.0 in advanced placement courses.

Schools recognize their top athletes by awarding them varsity letters. Rather than eliminating winners, they instead construct trophy displays and hang record plaques on the gymnasium wall. Have you seen similar public recognition and celebration of top academic achievement?

But this is not just about public recognition. There are scholarships awarded to valedictorians and salutatorians. And class rank matters, too, with scholarships available to those placing in the top 10 percent of their class.

So, as you attend graduation ceremonies and graduation parties, be sure to give a sincere hat-tip to vals and sals in the class. They are a dying breed.

Mike Reno is a former trustee of the Rochester Board of Education.

Undermining Confidence In Schools

2011-04-07T07:13:00.002-05:00

When school boards continue to spew misinformation, it undermines public confidence in the whole system.

I write about it here:

Detroit News: Local schools haven't made cuts (04/07/11)

==> Mike.

Here is the whole article in case the link does not work:

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

Governor Snyder affirmed his commitment to education by dedicating a full thirty percent of the state budget to education. Snyder’s budget also prudently balances spending with revenue, and necessitates a 4% reduction in education funding; the first substantial cut since this economic crisis began.

School administrators now predict our children are doomed. Unions are threatening an illegal strike. School boards are insulting their legislators and the governor, and spinning a deceitful message designed to manipulate the public.

Make no mistake: these protests are not selfless concern about the well-being of our children. This is all because the adults in the system don’t want to pay a little towards their health care and retirement benefits, and school boards lack the will or the skill to reform a stale public education system.

If ever there was a time for taxpayers to stand up to this greedy special interest… this is it. The long term stability and viability of public education is at stake.

The Rochester school board provided a great forum in which
we could watch this drama unfold. Within a two-week period, they held a “study session” on the budget, as well as conducted public interviews for a new superintendent. Observers were exposed to the district’s homegrown budget misinformation, and also heard funding sentiments of superintendent candidates who came from other Michigan districts.

Rochester claims they are being forced to accept cuts of over $1100 per pupil, even though Snyder’s proposed reduction is only $300 per pupil. The balance of the “cuts” are not really cuts; they are the end of the supplemental federal bailouts – the so-called “stimulus funds” and the “edu-jobs” money.

School boards knew full well that those were one-time dollars, and have had two full years to plan for the expiration, but have done nothing whatsoever to prepare.

In fact, during that two year period many school boards, including Rochester, committed to expensive employee contracts, even though they knew those federal dollars were set to expire.

The Rochester board approved a union contract they label as concessionary. But over its three-year duration the contract was projected to save one-tenth of one percent. With retirement increases this year, it probably saves nothing.

Since 2005, the Rochester board voluntarily agreed to allow the cost of its union contract to increase by a total of $950 per pupil.

The board goes on to say they’ve cut $28 million since 2001. The budget in 2001 was around $110 million. If they cut $28 million, then it should be around $82 million now, right? Wrong. This year the budget is $158 million.

Only in government does that math work.

What schools do is cut student programs and layoff their youngest teachers in order to make room for salary and benefit increases for the older ones. They report the cuts, but not the simultaneous increases.

And other “cuts” correct the absurd contracts they have been defending for years, such as paying custodians upwards of $60,000 per year in salary and benefits.

So what did the superintendent candidates have to say about this?

They are all from Michigan, and it was no great surprise that they were all in lockstep.

One indicated that if selected, he’d collaborate with the union, and seek support from parents to descend on Lansing and make them understand that “we’re not going to neglect our kids!”

Another believes that our legislators and the Governor are simply ignorant and uninformed, and agreed with the school board that Lansing and the public need to be “educated and informed”, presumably by those that got us into this mess.

What these candidates – and school boards around the state – fail to recognize is the legislature, the governor, and the public is becoming increasing well-informed about mismanagement of our public school system.

Clearly, school boards and superintendents are living in denial, and it’s our job as taxpayers to help them wake up to the reality of today.

If local school boards don’t start spending the billions they receive with better care, then it’s our job to un-elect them.

"Public Education Inc" Software Bugs

2010-11-19T08:37:00.007-05:00

I know... it's been a while.

But after watching the Rochester school board emulate Nancy Pelosi and her "We need to pass the bill first, so that you can see what's in it" approach, I had to allow myself this distraction:

The Detroit News: Talk about teacher contracts openly (11/19/10)

This isn't about the contract, it's about the aristocratic approach of the school board.

They'll reveal the contract, immediately vote on it, and THEN "welcome" your comments. Of course, by that point, your views will be irrelevant.

I've pasted below the original piece that was submitted to The Detroit News.

==> Mike.

(P.S. Thanks to Laurie Puscas for tipping me off to the T.A. She runs her own blog, found here.

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

Before Governor-elect Rick Snyder can implement his Michigan 3.0 vision, he must first accept that it’s entirely incompatible with an obsolete Public Education 1.0.

PE 1.0 is a school board developed subroutine that, when supercharged with an app called Union 2010, unapologetically consumes one-third of the entire state budget.

If Snyder is unable to debug PE 1.0, these rogue apps will just continue to demand more system resources, and overpower his fresh new program.

Just look at an all too common story that is happening in Rochester, but could just as easily be in any district around the state.

The school board hasn’t passed a balanced budget in at least seven years. This year it’s projecting a $4.9 million dollar deficit.

The actual magnitude of their deficit spending has been masked by the massive infusion of federal Obamabucks over several years.

They just increased the local tax rate by 30 percent. They are deferring building maintenance and technology updates.

Yet the board cannot even honestly face their problems.

Rochester claims to have reduced their budget by $13 million over the past three years. Perhaps in government-world, where a cut doesn’t really mean a cut, they have.
But in the real world, budget documents from the district website put 2007 spending at $160 million, and 2010 spending at $158 million.

Their biggest expense is labor, which consumes over 85 percent of their budget.
It’s quite significant then that the board just announced a “tentative” contract with their local teacher union.

But unbelievably, the agreement was developed in the proverbial “smoke-filled back room”, and in a move reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi and the health care bill, the board does not want to let the public in on the details until after they pass it.

This contract – this secret contract – is undeniably the single biggest determining factor in whether the district will ever balance the budget. It’s one of the biggest decisions the board will make in the near future, and they are making it with the least possible transparency.

It will help to determine how much pressure the board will put on Lansing – and specifically Governor-elect Snyder – for education funding.

The existing contract – which is more or less identical to contracts in all Michigan districts – is structured so that total compensation will increase by roughly 5 percent per year, regardless of performance and regardless of revenue. Healthcare and retirements costs are not capped in any way whatsoever.

The only hope for balancing the budgets and controlling costs is to work out new employee contracts that are reasonable, fair, and affordable.

Does this secret new deal change anything, or is it more of the same?

Will it save our schools, or instead doom them to more years of cuts to educational programs, increased pay-to-play sports fees, and perhaps even lead to a new sinking fund millage?

Will it allow the district to survive on projected state revenues, or will it require the board to pressure Lansing for more money, pleading “for the children”?

This agreement will have a profound impact on the district for years to come, and will affect parents, students, homeowners, and taxpayers alike. Therefore, they should have a reasonable opportunity to understand the contract, and provide feedback prior to a binding vote by their so-called representatives.

The aristocratic school board refuses.

Rochester is not unique. School boards across the state handle their negotiations in the same manner.

Snyder needs to find a way to hold school boards accountable for this sort of nonsense, such as requiring a two week public disclosure period before binding union contract votes are made.

Otherwise, school boards will continue to hold Lansing hostage, and will all but insure that Snyder’s software upgrades will crash.

Risky Bonds and Lazy School Boards

2010-06-30T06:26:00.005-05:00

Most people don't know that school boards can raise your taxes without a vote of the people.

In Michigan, we are protected from large tax increases by the Headlee Ammendment, passed in 1978. But taxpayers have no protection against school boards.

Among other things, Headlee limits the total amount of taxes collected by limiting the total increase to the rate of inflation. But there is apparently some loophole that exempts school bonds, and school boards exploit it to the fullest extent of the law.

Rochester's risky bond scheme just blew up, and now they are dumping on local taxpayers with a 30% tax increase, from 5.18 mills to 6.7 mills. There is another 15% increase on the horizon, up to 7.7 mills.

(Incidentally, they'll now be collecting $27.5 million in bond taxes, which translates into $1850 per pupil! That is IN ADDITION TO the $10,500 or so they receive into their general fund from all sources of revenue.)

I wrote about it last week in the Oakland Press:

Oakland Press: Poor management leads to school tax hikes (6/24/10)

What can you do about it? Absolutely nothing.

And don't think this is the end of their desire to tax.

For years the district as budgeted very little for building maintenance, assuming that they would just call for another bond issue, and fund maintenance out of special bond dollars, rather than consider them normal operating expenses.

That scheme has run it's course, and is no longer an option.

However, while they were operating this scheme, the board was underfunding budgets for building maintenance, instead funnelling every available penny to salaries and benefits.

So, they are no longer in a position to pass more bonds, and they have no money in the general fund for building maintenance.

My guess is that the school board will soon be looking for a taxpayer bailout, and they'll call it a "sinking fund."

They'll blame the state for "underfunding schools", and plead for this new tax. Taxpayers will be told they can approve this new tax, or instead watch the district's beautiful buildings fall apart.

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

==> Mike.

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

GUEST OPINION: Poor management leads to school tax hikes
Thursday, June 24, 2010

By Mike Reno

School bonds are ticking time bombs set to explode this month on unsuspecting taxpayers.

They were planted years ago by lackluster school boards.

Rather than attempt to disarm them and avoid a tax increase, boards will let them detonate, banking on another taxpayer bailout, with little regard for the collateral damage their hikes may inflict on struggling homeowners.

This serves as a lesson to those who ignore school board elections, and ignore the “fine print” when these bonds are promoted.

A school board typically markets a bond proposal by communicating the bond value and millage rate. For example, a district might ask for a $64 million bond issue, with a 5.18 mill tax rate.

However, the “fine print” reveals the millage figure might be a “low introductory rate,” subject to increases determined by your local school board.

This just happened in Rochester, where the 5.18 mill rate increased by 30 percent to 6.7 mills. Taxpayers have no say, and most will probably remain unaware of the tax hike until they open their next tax bill.

It’s happening in other communities too, such as South Lyon and Royal Oak.

On the surface, plummeting home values are to blame. With housing assessments down, the amount collected by the current millage isn’t enough to make scheduled school bond payments.

Yet as much as school boards might wish to be seen as helpless victims of economic circumstances, there’s plenty they could be doing to relieve our school tax obligations.

Let’s start with the bonds themselves. In Rochester, the repayment schedule is based on the assumption home values would increase 6 percent annually — forever.

This is like taking out a home mortgage with monthly payments that increase annually based on the assumption that you’ll get a substantial raise every year — forever.

Who came up with this idea? A financial consultant who’s been awarded no-bid contracts since the 1990s and also hired a sitting Rochester school board member.

A consultant who now says raising taxes is the only option.

Perhaps a tax increase is inevitable. But rather than merely rubber-stamping it, our elected officials should probe everything, leaving no stone unturned in an effort to avert a tax increase.

Instead, none questioned a misleading board presentation. This increase is $152 per $100,000 of taxable home value, but the presentation attempts to fool people into thinking the increase will be much less.

After the deceptive presentation, and considering how this consulting firm put the district into its present “no option” predicament, the board was urged to go the extra mile on behalf of the taxpayer, and at least seek a second opinion. The board didn’t respond to the suggestion.

Someone then pointed out how the benevolent board has kept tax rates constant for the past decade, as if we should expect regular taxes increases and be grateful they’ve held off for so long. And it completely ignores the fact that 10 years ago the district collected $16.7 million in taxes, while next year they’ll levy $27.5 million.

In the end, the board made no effort to protect taxpayers, and voted unanimously for a tax increase. And there’s another 15-percent increase projected for next year, to 7.7 mills!

The biggest problem isn’t the tax increase; it’s the sloppy way it happened. It’s been a lesson in poor governance, from the risky bond scheme to the conflict-of-interest consultant, to the deceptive presentations, and concluding with the downright lazy decision to skip a second opinion.

These school boards are their own worst enemy. Their behavior and mismanagement causes people to doubt their credibility, ultimately making it difficult to find tax dollars for worthwhile projects and justifiable needs.

Sports: The 3rd Rail of School Politics

2010-06-23T10:58:00.008-05:00

High voltage electricity was once supplied to trains through the “third rail”. Over time, the phrase “third rail” became a metaphor denoting a political subject so highly charged that politicians who dared to discuss the subject – metaphorically touch the rail – would suffer greatly.

In school politics, athletics is a third rail, and some local school boards recently tested voltage. Sparks flew... and the boards backed down.

I wrote this piece a few weeks ago:

Detroit News: Bloated costs hurting schools (06/03/10)

As predicted, the school board is going to pull hundreds of thousands of dollars out of savings to subsidize sports.

They will spend about $900 per pupil for the 1800 students that play sports, and it comes at the expense of the 13,000 kids who don't play.

Meanwhile, they are slashing $1,000,000 out of the already underfunded building maintenance budget.

Keep all of this in mind when this board approaches voters in a few years to ask for a sinking fund millage. We'll have leaky roofs, and cracked parking lots, and they'll tell you that there is just no money to fix things. Remember their actions here when they trot out the "we have no choice" excuse.

==> Mike.

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

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

June 3, 2010 http://detnews.com/article/20100603/OPINION01/6030345

Bloated costs hurting schools

MIKE RENO

For years, irresponsible school board spending set the stage for a financial meltdown. The economic crisis in Michigan accelerated the process, compelling boards to consider tough budget choices.

These choices have brought out competing special interest groups, claws extended, defending their turf, trying to push the cuts onto someone else.

Employee unions are the 800-pound gorilla in these fights, but the "athletic parent" is proving to be one tough mama grizzly as well. They view after-school sports as an entitlement, and attack anyone who threatens it.

This entitlement is being tested in cash-strapped districts, and fur is flying from Rochester to Romeo to Farmington.

In Rochester, student athletes are assessed a $180 pay-to-play fee, which comes nowhere close to covering athletic spending.

Even after these fees, Rochester athletic spending exceeds $1.6 million dollars. That's nearly $890 for each of the 1,800 student athletes. Add together the school expenditures and student fees, and the average cost for after-school sports is $1,070 per participant.

Compare school spending to several private intramural football and basketball teams in Rochester. Some are recreational, while others are more competitive. They range in cost from $140 to $250 per child per season; up to 85 percent less than the school.

Beyond the annual costs, the district recently installed three artificial turf football fields at $1 million dollars each, as well as two middle school auxiliary gymnasiums "needed" to supplement the main gyms.

Ignoring costs, there's no doubt that sports are constructive for some students. Sports can teach leadership and teamwork, and help a child learn to humbly accept victory or graciously concede defeat. For some, athletics are the only motivation to do well in school.

But the fact remains that after-school sports aren't part of a school's core curriculum, and the costs come at the expense of the thousands of students who do not play.

The $1.6 million dollar athletic expenditure in Rochester is now being examined as the district faces a $14 million dollar deficit. One proposal considers increasing the pay-to-play fee to $450, and athletic boosters are marching on the board with torches and pitchforks.

Yet none of them comment on the layoff notices to 30 teachers and dozens of secretaries, or the reductions in library and special education support staffs.

Deficit reduction proposals consider maximizing the "contractual staffing formula." This is jargon for increasing class sizes to the absolute contractual limits. There hasn't been a peep out of parents.

The board proposes to reduce an already underfunded building maintenance budget, causing speculation they'll soon be begging taxpayers to pass a sinking fund millage. Parents have been silent on this issue.

But the board has received hundreds of letters from athletic parents "outraged" at the increased pay-to-play proposal.

Parents should be upset, but not at the fee. They should be upset that the school board let the cost of sports become so outrageously expensive. And they should be upset that the board continues to squeeze academic and athletic programs to feed unreasonable union demands.

In the end, politicians on the Rochester board -- lacking conviction -- will likely cave to the pressure, pulling more money from the district's rapidly dwindling savings account to subsidize after-school sports.

Rochester is the example, but extrapolating these numbers statewide suggest athletic spending might exceed $185 million annually. And sports may be the face of the debate, but other extra-curricular activities such as drama and choir are also at risk.

Sadly, no solution is in sight.

Rather than deal with economic reality, schools contend this is a "Lansing problem," issuing calls for "stable funding" (more education jargon for a tax increase).

A taxpayer bailout of irresponsible school board spenders is not the solution.

Schools must acquire the fiscal discipline necessary to get spending in line with reasonable benchmarks set by the private sector, not just in sports, but in all areas of their operation.

And boards must develop the communication skills necessary to help us understand why this is the time for shared sacrifice from employee unions, athletic parents, and other special interest groups.

School Boards to Parents: Talk to the Hand

2010-05-25T20:43:00.006-05:00

The Rochester Community Schools board of education has determined that high school senior class valedictorian and salutatorian honors are no longer fashionable.

Moreover, class ranking - a designation which facilitates college admissions and scholarship awards - has also been given the boot by Rochester's school board.

Perhaps there's a good reason for their determination to abolish academic
ranking districtwide, but none of the current board members has been willing to explain their rationale to this parent. (Despite 2 trips to the podium and two detailed written communications.)

The sad fact is that community members who ask questions that challenge the prevailing position of the sitting board are given a stone-faced stare and a "Thank you for your comments" from the assembled dignitaries of Rochester's own "Mt. Rushmore".

Mind you, Rochester's "chosen ones" are not unique in this approach. I've attended plenty of board meeting in other districts, and it's the same story.

School boards tend to view parents and taxpayers as ATM machines, from which they can make withdrawals at will. Yet they offer nothing in return - certainly not meaningful answers.

So long as parents and taxpayers tolerate such dismissive arrogance from
public officials, local school boards will continue to practice "school
business" as usual.

Background on the valedictorian / salutatorian / class ranking issue can be
found here.

Watch this short 90-second video, then tell me what you believe the
Rochester school board is trying to "communicate":

School boards claim they want to hear from you.

Go ahead.

Step right up to the altar and talk to their hand.

Trendy Schools Risk College Scholarship Dollars

2010-05-14T09:37:00.006-05:00

Attention middle school parents: Is your school board making trendy policy changes that could cost Rochester students lost college scholarship opportunities?

There is a good chance that they are.

Is there a benefit to the students? Nobody knows.

The Rochester Community Schools board is changing the way it honors high-achieving graduates. The proposed changes will improve the recognition system. But ever-conscious of being trendy, the district will also inadvertently take aim at high-achieving students by removing honors and rankings that can undoubtedly help in admissions and scholarships.

I have yet to understand why we wouldn’t want to do everything we can to help in the competitive admissions process, and I’m dumbfounded why we would want to put potential scholarship dollars at risk.

THE BACKGROUND

The district currently has no mechanism for weighting grades. As far as GPA is concerned, an “A” in gym or salsa-making is equal in weight to an “A” in AP Calculus. As a result, you’ll have some of the “top scholars” consist of those that really busted their butts with a rigorous schedule, while others “not so much.”

So discussions on grade weighting began in 2006. With weighting, the grading scale is expanded; potentially offering extra points to the grades earned in rigorous AP classes. Instead of a 4.0 scale, the tough classes might work on a 4.5 scale. An “A” in AP Calc would be worth 4.5, while an “A” in Diet and Exercise would be worth 4.0. A “B” in AP Calc would be worth 3.5, while a “B” in Diet and Exercise would be worth 3.0. This would reward those students who took the challenging classes, and allow them to stand out. It might also provide an incentive for those who might otherwise shy away from AP classes for fear it would damage their GPA.

After several years of committee work, the board was presented with a proposal that looked at a different approach. Instead of adding weight to the grades of tougher classes, they were proposing to lower the grading scale. I wrote about that here in a blog entry entitled, “Come to Rochester, our A’s are easier!”

THE SOLUTION

Fortunately the committee moved away from their “lower the bar” initial proposal. But sadly, they abandoned the whole concept of rewards and incentives for rigorous classes. Ironicially, the "grading committee" did nothing about grades! :-)

But they did come back with something pretty good.

Rather than the time-honored tradition of summa cum laude, magna cum laude, and cum laude, which is generally based solely on GPA, the district will now implement a more expanded set of requirements:

SCHOLARS OF HIGHEST DISTINCTION
GPA: 3.9 – 4.0
Four AP Courses
ACT Composite of 32 or higher

SCHOLARS OF DISTINCTION
GPA: 3.8
Three AP Courses
ACT Composite of 28 or higher

SCHOLARS OF ACHIEVEMENT
GPA: 3.5
Two AP Courses
ACT Composite of 26 or higher

It’s got a few warts (like no requirement to take the AP exam), but overall I like this proposal because it will acknowledge those that really applied themselves, and showed measurable success.

THE FOOTNOTE

However, in the process of creating this new proposal, they tossed in a few footnotes. No grade weighting, the elimination of Validictorians, Salutorians, and the elimination of class rank.

They did not explain why.

At one point while I served on the board there was some talk that class rank (and Val/Sal recognition) served as an excuse for not talking rigorous classes. Kids would not want to risk their GPA or class rank position.

This is an unsubstantiated theory. There has not been a meaningful discussion in public on this. And if there were some way to prove it, then one could argue that grade weighting could solve it.

I wrote about this a few years back ("Academic Achievement Deserves More Recognition, not Less!").

To be fair, there are some highly selective, top achieving schools that have eliminated class rank. These are schools where many students are taking rigorous classes, scoring well, only to find themselves barely making the top 25%. That is not the case in Rochester, where less than 40% of the graduates can pass all four ACT College Readiness Benchmarks.

On it's website, The College Board states:

According to a March 2006 New York Times article, some college admissions officers disapprove of the trend away from reporting class rank, because, they say, it forces them to "make less informed decisions or overemphasize results on standardized tests."

They go on to say:

Most large state universities, however, still require applicants to report class rank (as do many scholarship programs), and rely on it to help sort through the high volume of applications received.

Eliminating class rank, and vals/sals seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

BLOCK THE SCHOLARSHIPS

By eliminating class rank, and vals/sals, the school board is putting at risk some scholarship money. Scholarships for vals and sals are quite clear in the requirements. No val/sal, no money. And some scholarships specifically incorporate class rank into their formula. No class rank, no money.

If we are going ruin the opportunity for some students to earn scholarships, then we must have a good reason, right?

I asked that question in a letter to the board. The response: “Thank you. Please provide your home address when corresponding with the board.”

So, I waited around for three and half hours at a school board meeting to ask them in person. Check out the robust board discussion in this clip:

Is it any wonder people avoid school boards like the plague?

I followed-up with yet another letter, and finally received a response. The response did not explain WHY the honors are being eliminated, but does offer a defense that argues our kids will not be negatively impacted because Rochester will join a growing list of high schools that does not report class rank.

HALF EMPTY – HALF FULL

The response was thoughtful, but the arguement was weak. It was quite illustrative of the typical debates that happen all the time in education.

For example, one might argue that the trend is moving away from class rankings, and as a result colleges have adjusted their admissions policies to adapt. Therefore, we should follow the trend.

The opposing argument would note that over half of the colleges still consider class rank to be considerably or moderately important. Therefore, we should retain class rank to give an extra boost to the high achievers.

If you were to ask a college, “Do you value class rank?”, the answer would mostly like be “Yes. It’s helpful”

If you ask that same college, “Can you live without it?”, the answer would probably be “Yes. We must, because some schools don’t report.”

In the end, if both sides of a debate can site the same reports and sources as support for their argument, then does it even matter?

Yes, it does.

Schools should be preparing our children to be adults. Competition is part of life. Shielding them from competition is not doing them any good. It spoils them. Pampers them.

We’re comfortable ranking them as athletes, but not as scholars? We’re comfortable naming a winner in a race, but not in overall academic achievement? We can line the gym walls with athletic records, but won't honor our scholars in the same manner?

Our children are entering a world that is highly competitive. College admissions and scholarship awards are highly competitive. A good class rank, not to mention val/sal designation, is not going to be a deciding factor for a college or a scholarship board. But it would help.

We should not be taking away tools that can help.

And school boards should welcome discussion about this, not ignore it.

Of Bucks and Boards: The MEA extends its tentacles

2010-05-07T07:24:00.007-05:00

Witness the power and influence the union can wield during May elections.

The MEA's website (found here) brags about local school election victories -- apparently satisfied the union will reap its rewards during future contract negotiations -- yet ignores the full impact of union interests trumping those of students and taxpayers.

The MEA will often funnel money into elections (as shown here), but they usually do so quietly. More often they attempt to influence behind the scenes, with the union providing "soft" backing during elections.

The claims they make are nothing short of outrageous. Look at how they connect the dots: Electing pro-union candidates equates to a pro-education mood? Electing pro-union candidates equates to support of "quality of life"? Where was the ballot question on "unstable funding" that voters reportedly recognized?

In Warren, they claim to have unseated an incumbent. Check out the vote results here. 78,042 registered voters. 7,443 bothered to show up. That's 9.53%. Rest assured that a good portion of them are MEA members, family of MEA members, etc.

In Durand, the famed epicenter of the "wake-up call... for the working class", had some 800 votes cast. I tried to lookup the vote totals, but I'm not even sure where Durand is located! I found Durand votes in Genesee County (found here), where a whopping 7.90% of the registered voters cast ballots.

These local board members live in anonymity, yet collectively control one-third of your state budget -- some $13 billion dollars -- as well as billions in local property taxes and billions in federal tax grants.

You don't think it's happening in your district? Think again.

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

Election results: Schools win at the polls

Will Lansing get the message?

May 6, 2010 - Voters statewide sent a strong message at the polls this week, approving taxes to pay for education and public safety, electing union-backed candidates, and unseating scores of school board incumbents.

“It’s about quality of life,” said Jim Ward, a media specialist at Forest Hills Northern High School. “The voters are supportive of activities that they define as quality of life – and that’s public service and public education. This broke the whole ‘cut, cut, cut, don’t talk about taxes’ approach. We need to support essential services.”

Hopefully, legislators will get the message: Enough is enough!

Voters support their schools – and other vital public services – and recognize that unstable funding hurts students and communities.

From St. Joseph to Adrian to Bessemer, voters were in a pro-education mood Tuesday.

In Durand, a school custodian whose job was outsourced to a private company in December, won a contested school board election. Paul Mayers, a former union president who now works for the private company, is one of two union-supported candidates who won in Durand.

“I hope it’s a wake-up call,” Mayers said. “This is a victory for the working class.”

Other election victories included:

In Warren, voters unseated incumbents in favor or Sue Jozwik, a job recruiter with MEA support, and Elaine Martin, a retired school secretary.

The Petoskey News-Review trumpeted election results – the headline was “Big night for millages in Emmet, Charlevoix” – as voters passed several millage proposals in the area.

Holland voters OK’d $73 million in school bonds to pay for better buildings, computers, and athletic facilities.

In St. Johns, voters passed a $64.3 million proposal to fund high school improvements, new buses, and technology upgrades. Funding requests were also approved in Stockbridge, Portland, Bath, and Ionia County.

In Ironwood, two of the three school board races went to candidates recommended by the MEA affiliates there.

St. Joseph voters approved a $38 million bond issue for renovations, additions, and equipment upgrades including replacing aging computers.

Despite these positive results, much work remains to secure adequate funding for public education and other necessary services.

MEA is part of a coalition – A Better Michigan Future – that advocates a four-point priority plan to help Michigan. If you’d like to learn more about the coalition and its work, go to http://www.abettermichiganfuture.org/.

You are also encouraged to take five minutes to contact your legislators and Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Tell them to support efforts to provide adequate, stable and equitable funding for education!

And, finally, to learn more about MEA’s “Enough is enough” campaign, a strategic action plan, go to http://www.mea.org/Enough/index.html.

April 27, 2010

End School Board / Union Negotiations

2010-03-11T07:50:00.004-05:00

It's hard for a conservative like me to believe that government can be the solution, but when it comes to schools, it's even harder to picture it getting any worse.

During my five-plus years serving Rochester Schools, the school board did not pass one single budget that was balanced. Every year they approved deficit spending.

Of course, there was plenty of hand-wringing, but the facts speak for themselves.

Even today, the board is in negotiations with their local teacher's union, and have been for nearly a year. Yet despite losing some $900,000 per month this year -- and projecting a $14 million dollar deficit for next year -- the board continues to plod along with no sense of urgency, passing contract extensions again and again.

Rochester is not unique. I know many "rebels" on school boards across the state, and their experiences are nearly identical.

The current system fails students and taxpayers alike.

Local control is currently "out of control." With local control comes responsibility and accountability. School boards have shown none.

I wrote the following editorial proposing a reduction in school board responsibilities, which ran today:

Detroit News: Let state negotiate teacher contracts (03/11/10)

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

==> Mike.

Let state negotiate teacher contracts

MIKE RENO

Michigan spends more than $13 billion -- roughly one-third of the state budget -- on K-12 education, with an estimated 85 percent going to salaries and benefits.

Most of that $11 billion is doled out in piecemeal negotiations between a well-financed and organized Michigan Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, and more than 500 school boards around the state. When school boards square off against the MEA, they are out of their league.

Local boards lack financial acumen. I should know; I used to serve on one. At best, they attempt to tweak the nearly identical, outdated contract model governing nearly every district in the state. Even with innovative alternatives, boards lack the resolve or skill to bargain them into practice.

This mismatch could be fixed by removing the amateurs and putting state negotiators at the table with the MEA and AFT Michigan to create a single statewide teacher contract.

The illusion of "local control" is a fallacy. Union locals get their bargaining script from regional MEA Uniserve directors, who are well-financed, seasoned negotiators with a bargaining vocabulary dominated by "gimme" and "no." School board members are an often-changing group of elected community volunteers.

To further taint the process, the teacher union sits on both sides of the bargaining table. It influences local school board elections with a tangled web of state and county political action committees and gets union allies elected. It conducts membership training seminars titled, "Elect your Own Boss."

When negotiations stall, mediators and so-called "fact finders" intervene, the result is often the status quo.

Even state laws have become meaningless. In 2008, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Macdonald refused to hold striking MEA Wayne-Westland teachers accountable for their illegal actions. Another Wayne County judge let Detroit teachers illegally strike for 11 days before ordering them back to work in 2006. The Detroit school district failed to file a complaint with the state, so the union and rank-and-file members were never fined for their apparent violation of the law.

"Local control" is the euphemism that is supposed to make us feel good about this unbalanced contest.

The state already sets school funding, retirement plans and tenure laws. They're setting the framework for teacher evaluations. They've tinkered with the school calendar. Why not add labor negotiations?

It would be far more productive and honest to pit state negotiators against the MEA. It'd be a complex undertaking, requiring a multi-year, phased-in approach. But it would be more efficient, transparent and more equitable to teachers statewide.

Local superintendents and administrators could focus more on education and less on negotiation. More local education dollars could be shifted from negotiators, lawyers and human resources personnel back to the classrooms. Significant savings could be found by consolidating business functions, such as payroll.

Perhaps the biggest improvement would come from making the state responsible for establishing affordable commitments to our teachers and then being accountable for funding those promises.

The bargaining process needs to change, in part, because educators receive exceptional benefits, including premium health care coverage and a defined-benefit pension plan. A step system contractually guarantees significant annual raises for newer teachers without regard to merit or funding. They receive various stipends, longevity pay and even accrue sick days, which they can cash in at retirement.

While there was nothing inherently wrong with offering this level of compensation in the past, these contracts are now unaffordable. Anticipated revenue cannot keep up with the guaranteed cost increases.

Health care costs increase 7 percent or more annually. The blended affect of "step system" pay raises increase payroll costs by 4 to 5 percent a year. The generous pension system is funded by a payroll tax on schools, and it just increased from 16.94 percent of payroll to a staggering 19.41 percent.

Local school boards don't have what it takes to address a problem of this magnitude. As scary as it sounds, the state may be our best hope for achieving fair and affordable school employee contracts that balance the interests of children, teachers and taxpayers.

Come to Rochester --- Our A's are Easier!

2009-12-01T08:28:00.008-05:00

Rochester is considering a change in their grading policy for Advanced Placement courses. The idea is to lower the grading scale needed to earn an “A”, with the hope that more students will be more willing to take AP classes.

The highly respected Washington Post education reporter Jay Mathews took the Rochester ideas to his national audience:

Washington Post: Should we inflate Advanced Placement grades? (11/27/09)

I am quite certain that the idea is proposed with the best of intentions. But I just don't think lowering the bar is the right approach.

Be sure to read the comments posted by teachers and students… very insightful.

==> Mike.

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

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

Should we inflate Advanced Placement grades?

The Rochester Community public schools in Michigan do a fine job. Their leaders often have great ideas. But according to school board member Mike Reno, they are talking about doing something to their Advanced Placement courses that could be troublesome, even though I once thought it was a good idea. (Some people who know me say that is the very definition of a bad idea.)

Here is what Reno revealed in an email to me:

"Our district, in an effort to increase AP participation, is proposing to lower the grading scale for AP classes. The idea is based on the notion that kids in Rochester don’t want to take AP classes because they are afraid that the tougher work will lead to a lower grade, and they don’t want to damage their GPA for fear it will harm their college entrance chances. The district’s logic suggests by that lowering the grading scale, students will have a better chance of getting a better grade, and therefore be more willing to take the class.

"This is not their brainchild. They claim other districts are doing it. They are calling it internal weighting. They believe this is a better approach than grade weighting, where an A in an AP class would be worth, say, 5.0 instead of 4.0. The district argues that colleges strip off weighted grades, whereas an internal weight benefits the student during college entrance. (I believe grade weighting has value when calculating class ranking, vals, sals, top scholars, etc, but think colleges are free to recalculate anything they’d like). Am a crazy to think this is a bunch of nonsense?"

When I first began writing about AP in the 1980s, I saw some sense in AP teachers being somewhat easy on report card grades. You wanted kids to stick with the course. Since they would take an AP exam written and graded by outside experts, they would know eventually how close they were to a college standard. If the student got an A in the course but a 3 (the equivalent of a college C-plus) on the AP exam, that would be a useful wakeup call. I recalled that the AP teacher who inspired me to be an education writer, Jaime Escalante, was livid when another AP teacher gave Fs to a lot of students, leading them to drop the course.

But I later realized I had misunderstood what Escalante was doing. He graded his students pretty tough. He wouldn't flunk them because that would be too much of a turn-off, but if they were doing the kind of work that would get them a 3 on the exam, he came them a C, not an A, on their classwork. He understood that they needed to know BEFORE the exam what they were likely to get, so they would be motivated to work harder if they needed to catch up.

That is precisely what many AP and International Baccalaureate (the other popular college-level program in U.S. high schools) experts told me when I asked them about the Rochester idea. Roy Sunada, for many years a leading AP teacher and administrator at Marshall Fundamental High School in Pasadena, Calif., said none of his first reactions to undermining AP course grades were printable. "I will stand firm in my belief that artificial measures or grand-sweeping programs are not productive in encouraging students to seek academic rigor," he said.

Reno himself had good arguments against the Rochester proposal. "If AP in high school is not the time to introduce the real-life challenges to our youngsters, then when is the right time? Do we allow them to leave our community with high hopes and aspirations--and perhaps a false sense of their skills--only to get crushed in college when they are not prepared?" He also put in a good word for "the kids that really bust their humps and get real A grades and stay on top of the game. Don't they deserve the reward and distinction?"

On the other side was Trevor Packer, the College Board vice president who directs the AP program. He thought the Rochester idea had merit. He called it "another, viable way to weight AP grades in ways that more fairly represent the level of achievement." He and other veteran educators also supported the extra grade point weighting system for AP and IB found in many districts. In Fairfax County, Va., for instance, a student who gets a C in her AP course will see that letter on her report card, but she will get an extra grade point for it, a 3.0 instead of the usual 2.0. That bonus, several teachers say, is important to students who know they are going to struggle in the course.

Erin McVadon Albright, the IB coordinator at Annandale High School in Fairfax County, said that was a powerful inducement for one of her most intriguing students. He came from a low-income family that did not even have an Internet connection at home. He wanted to play football, which meant he had to take a government class online over the summer to have time for IB. He was using the computer at the office where his mother was a receptionist, but she was afraid someone would complain. He almost dropped the course until Albright managed to lend him a school laptop which he could take the public library to do his work.

Jon Gubera, AP director for the Indiana education department, said "grades are the single most relevant academic currency for students. In my experience, the best way we were able to incent marginal students to take a leap of faith and join an AP course was through providing a weighted grade so as to reassure them that their overall GPAs would not be ruined by earning a C in an AP course."

Gubera had little problem with the Rochester idea. It reminded him of what happens on many college campuses--"a 70 percent on a final exam, for example, translates into an A in the course." He also thinks some AP teachers do similar internal weighting on their own, without any guidance from their districts. They will give the student working at the 3 level a representative C in course work leading up to the exam. But when they mark the final report card--weeks after the student has taken the AP exam--they will award extra credit and bump them up to a B.

Does that make sense? Grading in American high schools is like cage fighting. There aren't many rules. If there are AP or IB teachers out there with their own special tricks, post a comment here to educate the rest of us.

The MEA is a problem, but your local school board is worse

2009-11-16T18:04:00.003-05:00

Year after year, report after report, Michigan’s education system gets pounded.

Detroit News: Researchers from political left and right give Michigan schools mediocre grades (11/16/09)

Yet despite this sort of report card, people fail to hold school boards accountable for their failures.

This is a great quote from the article: Upon the report's release, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan noted the country's education system is as important an indicator of economic health as the "stock market, the unemployment rate, or the size of the GDP."

Our schools have smart kids, some great teachers, and wonderful buildings. The state devotes one third of its budget to K-12 education.

Yet school boards have allowed expenses to grow in an undisciplined and out-of-control way, they set no meaningful and/or measurable goals, and have no clear or inspiring vision for the future.

So, while the editorial is accurate when it points out that the MEA bears some responsibility, I think the lion’s share of blame rests squarely on the shoulders of your local school board.

Hold’em accountable!

==> Mike.

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

November 16, 2009 http://detnews.com/article/20091116/OPINION01/911160304

Editorial: Researchers from political left and right give Michigan schools mediocre grades

Michigan's education system is lagging in data collection and accountability, hiring and evaluating teachers and school management, says a new report co-sponsored by researchers on both the nation's left and right, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The "Laggards and Leaders" report, sponsored by the conservative American Enterprise Institute and the liberal Center for American Progress think tanks, reflects the growing realization on both sides of the political aisle of how stagnant and ineffective the U.S. educational system has become.

Nationally the report's authors found less than two-thirds of American schools provide access to college-level coursework. Given schools' weak support for rigorous academic preparation, it's no wonder America is lagging behind other industrial countries for college-going and completion.

State finance systems are inefficient and undermine innovation, the researchers also found.

Other widespread problems include teacher evaluations that are not based on teacher effectiveness. Only four states require evidence of student learning to be a major factor in teacher evaluations.

"Without the ability to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom, school leaders cannot build a cohesive school culture, create an environment of accountability, and ensure that all students will learn," the report said.

In Michigan, the teachers unions surely have been one of the state's greatest obstacles to recent reforms. The Michigan Education Association has been lobbying fiercely against changes in school data collection and alternative certification pathways for teachers, among other ideas, stalling the state's application to win $600 million in competitive federal Race to the Top funding.

The state's higher education system also has been hurting Michigan's Race to the Top chances by resisting the development and use of a long-term data collection system to track Michigan children's growth and progress from pre-kindergarten through college.

The report's researchers noticed and gave Michigan a grade "D" for data collection. The state received "C" grades for school management; technology; staff hiring and firing; and removing ineffective teachers.

Seventy-five percent of Michigan principals studied said teacher unions or associations are a barrier to the removal of bad teachers, 14 points higher than the national average of 61 percent. Eighty percent of principals also reported tenure is a barrier to removing low-performing educators.

Overall Michigan received a mediocre grade. Just two areas, finance and its student pipeline to postsecondary learning, received a "B" grade.

Upon the report's release, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan noted the country's education system is as important an indicator of economic health as the "stock market, the unemployment rate, or the size of the GDP."

Michigan, failing in economic growth and job creation, must get its schools in order to educate its citizens out of the Great Recession and get them successfully working in the global economy.

Michigan Schools & MEA prefer tax hikes over $600 million in Federal Money.

2009-11-08T09:27:00.005-05:00

Michigan parents are being bombarded with “call your legislator” messages from school boards and superintendents, asking them to pressure the state for more money.

Yet for all of the whining about funding, I haven’t seen a single message from any school asking that parents rally behind the federal "Race to the Top" initiative that would allow Michigan schools to potentially receive up to $600 million in federal funds.

I haven't seen any "Action Alerts" from the MIchigan Association of School Boards -- the MASB -- suggesting that school boards lobby legislators to advocate for this money.

Is it that schools need money, but only want it if there are no strings attached?

Here are a few recent articles on the issue:

Detroit News: Embracing promising reforms would leverage federal money to help students (11/4/09)

Detroit News: School sabotage (11/8/09)

Also note that this is not some new issue. I wrote about his back on August 2, 2009, in a blog entry found here.

Here’s an interesting test… next time you see a school board member from your district, ask them if they know ANYTHING about this legislation. My guess is that they can drone on about the need to raise taxes in Michigan, but can't talk with any depth about this Obama/Duncan "Race to the Top" initiative.

==> Mike.

I have posted the articles below, in case the links don't work.

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

State ignores $600M for schools

Embracing promising reforms would leverage federal money to help students

MICHAEL VAN BEEK

Michigan's school funding debate has been cast as a choice between two ideas: Budget cuts or tax hikes. Yet there is a $600 million alternative that has been ignored by key players in the debate.

Taxpayers should take note because the failure to explore this option suggests any tax increase for education will be wasted.

In the next few months, the U.S. Department of Education will dish out $4.35 billion in "Race to the Top" money to the states. Michigan would be more likely to receive $600 million of this money if it adopted four reforms: Expand the number of charter schools, create a stronger alternative teacher certification program, link student performance data to individual teachers and systematize reform procedures for failing schools.

There are good reasons to be skeptical of federal money, which often bureaucratizes the schools and advances a questionable agenda. But such concerns are typically overlooked by the governor and many in the Legislature, who desperately seek a school spending fix. In this case, the proposed reforms show promise.

Consider charter schools. A growing body of evidence indicates that charter schools improve student achievement, and a recent study demonstrates that New York City charter schools have closed achievement gaps at an unprecedented rate.

But charter school expansion in Michigan is effectively blocked by a legislative cap on the number of charter schools that can be authorized by state universities, which approve most of the charter schools in Michigan. School employee unions traditionally have fought raising this cap, arguing that there is insufficient evidence that charter schools improve student improvement.

As for alternative teacher certification, Michigan law theoretically permits it. But every teacher is still forced to obtain a degree specifically in education -- no other specialty will do.

This approach discourages many talented individuals from becoming teachers. Yet research shows teacher quality is key to student performance, and Race to the Top's multiple certification routes would permit accomplished professionals to enter teaching without needing to obtain a new degree.

Michigan's student performance measurements, the Michigan Educational Assessment Program and the Michigan Merit Examination are reported school by school. But the results are not linked to teachers to allow teachers' successes to be more easily analyzed. Of course, such an analysis is complex -- many factors go into student achievement -- but the analysis is prohibitively difficult if the raw data is hard to obtain, a point that Race to the Top recognizes.

As for the fourth reform, the Legislature is advancing bills to more aggressively reconstitute perennially failing schools. The bill most likely to pass, however, would make it harder to privatize noninstructional services, robbing districts of a major cost-saving tool.

So why hasn't Michigan adopted these reforms, especially when the state could land an extra $600 million for schools?

The school employee unions view them as threats. They fear more charter schools because the schools are not typically unionized, and reconstituted schools may follow their example. Tracking individual teachers' progress could lead to performance pay and threaten the union's rigid compensation system.

Yet such concerns are primarily about union power, not better educational outcomes for kids.

If the governor and Legislature refuse to consider constructive change, taxpayers should reject any proposed tax hikes. There's no reason to feed more money into a system that refuses the most moderate reforms.

Michael Van Beek is the education policy director of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland. E-mail comments to letters@detnews.com">letters@detnews.com.

Additional Facts:

Among the policies states should adopt for "Race to the Top" grants:

Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments of student performance

Using state data to improve instruction

Differentiating teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance

Increasing the supply of high-quality charter schools

Turning around struggling schools

Source: U.S. Department of Education

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

School sabotage

With Michigan schools facing an enormous funding gap, the Michigan Education Association is attempting to sabotage an effort that could bring in more than $600 million in federal education money.

State policymakers are working to put together one of the essential pieces of legislation required to win federal "Race to the Top" grant money. President Barack Obama is using the money to give states an incentive to enact long-overdue education reforms.

Next month state school Superintendent Mike Flanagan must turn in the application for the competition, now being watched by U.S. foundations for signals about which states are serious about education reform and merit even more funding.

But the prospects for Michigan aren't good. The MEA, the state's largest teacher union, is pressuring cowardly lawmakers to block the Race to the Top legislation, which includes provisions making it easier for nonteachers to secure classroom positions, if they have critical skills.

This seemingly innocuous change has stirred up intense political fighting, pitting teacher unions against Gov. Jennifer Granholm and others, such as the United Way of Southeastern Michigan, who want the Race to the Top funds for Michigan.

Teach for America -- the heralded non-profit that prepares and places highly talented educators in struggling schools -- says it must have an alternative certification pathway for its members to become full-time teachers in Michigan.

MEA leaders say they oppose alternative teacher certification because they believe teacher training is essential to properly instruct students.

"This is not an union issue," MEA spokesman Doug Pratt says. "This is a fundamental belief ... that teachers who go through a traditional teacher prep process are going to be better for students in the long run."

But urban districts are having trouble finding highly qualified math and science teachers, in no small part because of the failure of traditional teacher training programs in the state.

That was one of the driving forces behind a Friday announcement by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation that it is investing $16.7 million to establish a new statewide fellowship program to provide 240 teachers for hard-to-staff schools.

If the MEA is allowed to sabotage Michigan's Race to the Top effort, it will mean the loss of about $600 million in federal money at a time when every classroom is facing an unprecedented budget cut. Ultimately, that will mean fewer jobs for teachers, hurting the union's own members.

It is absolutely essential that Michigan gets this money, and the education reforms that come with it.

Why do we ignore school spending?

2009-10-28T07:19:00.007-05:00

Everyone seems to have an opinion on government spending at the federal, state, county, and even city level. I don't understand why parents will get involved in the school FUNDING debate, but ignore school SPENDING.

Michigan's Governor just announced a shortfall in tax revenue, and the subsequent reduction in school funding. The predictable outcry from schools drove me to write this article:

Detroit News – Schools often don’t budget wisely – (10/27/09)

It ran the day after Governor Granholm used the Rochester Schools Administration Center for one of the stops on her PR Tour to raise taxes in Michigan. I was told that the by-invitation-only event included superintendents, board presidents, union presidents, and PTA presidents. You really couldn’t tell for sure because most of them snuck in the back door of the building.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop and House Representative Tom McMillen were also invited. They walked in the front door.

You can imagine the conversations that took place… all designed to pressure Bishop and McMillen to raise taxes. Schools pleading poverty, claiming that they have already cut everything that could be cut, threatening that further cuts to schools will directly impact the classroom.

That was Monday afternoon.

Monday evening, Rochester had a school board meeting.

There was not any mention of the Governor’s visit, nor did the board discuss the additional $1.9 million reduction in state funding that had been announced since the last board meeting.

What the board did do was approve a $45,000 expenditure for wireless microphones “to be used throughout the district in the three auditoriums for events such as Plays, Musicals and Summer Music Theater.”

I’m a “theatre parent”, and agree that wireless microphones certainly enhance the performance. I’d be happy to personally contribute to a fundraising event designed to fund the purchase of these sorts of theatre enhancements.

But I don’t think this purchase can be considered a critical and necessary district expenditure after the board approved a deficit budget of $2.5 million. It seem especially excessive after the additional state funding reductions, which will presumably push the deficit to $5 million.

It was approved on a 6-1 vote.

Its one small example that shows how school boards are oblivious to the situation they’re in.

==> Mike.

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

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

Schools often don't budget wisely

MIKE RENO

When Gov. Jennifer Granholm cut $54 million in "hold harmless" education funds, some critics suggested she did so for political reasons. Michigan Republicans should have accepted at face value that Granholm was following the GOP lead in trying to balance the budget without tax increases. But they didn't.

And schools are playing on that fact by turning up the heat and hyperbolically suggesting the government is cherry-picking whom they want to punish. Superintendents are bemoaning the cuts, using taxpayer resources to lobby parents and direct them to flood legislator phone lines and e-mail boxes with demands that education remain a priority.

No superintendent has acknowledged the fact that the state does value education and already spends one third of its budget -- about $16 billion -- on K-12 education.

The missing counterbalance to this outcry is spending oversight. There is an assumption that schools spend prudently, and their budgets can't absorb cuts. Just ask them, and they'll quickly offer meaningless sound bites like "We've already cut muscle, and are now cutting into the bone."

Somehow school boards get a free ride on spending accountability. Where is the critical eye on local school spending? School board meetings are sparsely attended with a handful of regulars in the audience and few from the media. School budgets are published in a way that even seasoned certified public accountants can't scrutinize.

Yet many parents jump -- without question -- when schools issue a call to action. Schools shamelessly threaten that our child's future will be harmed if we as parents don't jump.

This reflexive parental response is perplexing given that whenever the specific warts in a school budget are revealed, taxpayers are appalled. Gold-plated insurance benefits and a generous pension plan are among the best known. Superintendents make more than the governor. School boards approve multiyear contracts with guaranteed increases despite knowing future revenue is at risk. It's irresponsible, yet nobody holds school boards accountable.

Even school claims that "we've already cut" go unexamined. They will typically call a reduced spending increase "a cut." And when true cuts are made, they are typically made to preserve other poorly managed programs or contracts.

In the most recent round of state reductions, the per-pupil funding is decreased $165 per pupil. Schools are upset because it's coming mid-year after budgets have been established.

This is a bogus argument.

Schools have known for a year or more of the state's distressed financial condition. Groups like the Michigan School Business Officials monitor state revenues and provide guidance. In January, the School Business Officials group predicted cuts in the range of $100 to $150 per pupil. In Rochester, the school board chose to budget for a revenue cut of $110 per pupil.

Any school board that did not budget some sort of cut has no excuse for not doing so.

The $54 million line-item veto by Granholm is a different story. But even though it came as a surprise, it still merits examination.

The so-called 20j or affluent districts levy additional taxes on their residents and receive a $54 million supplemental payment from the state because they were spending more per-pupil in 1994 than the then-new Proposal A formula allowed. It's this supplement that was vetoed.

It's certainly a painful cut, but will it be fatal? Nearly $20 million of the cuts will come from Oakland County districts. Collectively, the 12 districts affected are sitting on nearly $140 million in "rainy day funds."

The question of whether it's fair for them to shoulder another $20 million in cuts is as subjective as the question of whether it's fair that they've continued to receive an extra $20 million for 10 years.

There is no clear right or wrong answer. But it's reasonable to ask -- especially in tough economic times -- whether affluent districts could bring spending more in line with other successful districts. At a minimum, taxpayers should be entitled to understand specifically what would be lost should the cuts be made.

But if few are questioning anything, schools are free to continue with business as usual, using our children as funding shields, accountable to no one.

Do school officials reside in charmed neighborhoods?

2009-10-27T06:56:00.004-05:00

Check out this Sunday column by Brian Dickerson:

Detroit Free Press: Schools finally know where they stand: At ground zero (10/25/09)

I started reading it, thinking it was just another “schools need more money” rant.

But this well-written piece baited me… lured me in… and then WHAM:

Still, you have to wonder where some of the public educators expressing shock at last week's developments spent their summer. Have they really been living in the same state as the rest of us?

Do school officials reside in charmed neighborhoods where jobs have begun to reappear, foreclosures are on the wane, and home prices are picking up? Are their neighbors getting pay raises, replacing large kitchen appliances and eating out more?

Oh, how I wish the Michigan Association of School Boards – the MASB – would switch to using this sort of material as part of their training program.

It takes a twist to the left towards the end, but that's OK because it tempts readers to think about the reality of the situation, and ponder outcomes.

==> Mike.

I've posted the text of the article below, in case the link doesn't work.

October 25, 2009
Schools finally know where they stand: At ground zero

BY BRIAN DICKERSON
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Superintendents of Michigan's richest school districts are apoplectic -- and who can blame them?

Just a week ago, their districts were the closest thing our battered state had to sacred cows; now they've been tossed into the meat grinder with everyone else.

What happened? Haven't voters identified K-12 education as a top priority in every public opinion poll since the beginning of time? Hasn't there been a bipartisan understanding that, in the event of a biblical flood that covered the Capitol dome, the school aid budget would be the one thing lawmakers snatched up before fleeing for higher ground?

School superintendents aren't stupid, you understand. They knew a real flood was coming, and they say they were prepared for, or at least resigned to, the $165-per-pupil hit that everyone had decided was their fair share of Lansing's end times slash-a-thon.

But then $165 per pupil became $292. And for the wealthiest districts -- the ones that weren't already advertising for emergency financial managers and holding bake sales to pay for their music teachers -- that was just the beginning.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, the governor who's been the darling of public educators for seven years was coming at them with a flamethrower, vetoing the money the richest school districts had long relied on to keep themselves at the head of the pack.

School leaders say they knew that Granholm was frustrated with Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, and with his Republican Senate's refusal to consider any revenue adjustment that might be construed as a tax increase. But why was she suddenly taking it out on them?

And why was the governor insisting the state couldn't afford the per-pupil expenditures legislators had approved, when the school aid budget on her desk reflected revenue estimates that the state's most trusted bean counters had made just last May?

A parallel state?

It's easy, as I said, to understand the top-tier superintendents' dismay. Here they are, nearly four months into the fiscal year, and just learning that millions of dollars they've already committed to spend won't be materializing. It's like planning Thanksgiving dinner for 20 people and learning, as you're preheating the oven, that there's no turkey or stuffing available.

Still, you have to wonder where some of the public educators expressing shock at last week's developments spent their summer. Have they really been living in the same state as the rest of us?

Do school officials reside in charmed neighborhoods where jobs have begun to reappear, foreclosures are on the wane, and home prices are picking up? Are their neighbors getting pay raises, replacing large kitchen appliances and eating out more?
And if none of these things is true, as I suspect, why is anyone the least bit surprised that the tax revenues Michigan relies on to support its schools have continued to plummet since May, or that they are likely to keep falling?

A sense of where they've been

For the record, I don't imagine for a minute that public school administrators are any more impervious to economic reality than the rest of us. Even the most affluent school districts have witnessed dwindling enrollments, increased demand for free or subsidized lunches, and burgeoning mental health problems. No one has to tell educators theirs is a state in crisis.

Still, many educators have remained certain that, especially in communities that have historically prided themselves on superior schools, tradition would somehow trump economic reality.

Suburban legislators might look the other way while poor people lost medical care or nursing homes were shuttered, and they might express sympathy for college students who lost tuition grants they'd been promised, even if most young people were too busy to vote.

But surely suburbanites would not sit still for massive cuts to their own children's' educational resources. Surely, if forced to choose between funding primary schools and keeping chewing tobacco or bottled water a few pennies cheaper, even the most tax-averse Republicans would choose pragmatism over ideological purity -- wouldn't they?

We'll know soon enough.

In the meantime, Michigan's richest school districts have belatedly achieved what airline pilots call "situational awareness."

Now teachers and school superintendants know what nursing home operators and police dispatchers do: In Michigan, we are all living at ground zero.

Contact BRIAN DICKERSON: 313-222-6584 or bdickerson@freepress.com

Make student performance -- not teacher protectionism -- the top priority

2009-09-23T11:06:00.004-05:00

Amber Arellano is an insightful education columnist for the Detroit News. It's purely conincidental that I'm writing two consecutive posts about her work; this post is actually about a rebuttal written to one of her articles.

She wrote a great article in early September:

Detroit News: Unionism needs to get rid of the stupid and get more the smart (09/08/09)

Arellano writes about ongoing teacher contract negotiations between Robert Bobb (the State Appointed Emergency Financial Manager assigned to sort out the Detroit Public Schools mess) and the Detroit Federation of Teachers (a unit of the AFT – American Federation of Teachers).

Arellano begins by discussing why she believe unions have been – and remain – an important element, and stresses the premise that “together we are stronger than we are individually”.

She then goes on to say, “The Bobb administration must get a contract that makes student performance -- not teacher protectionism -- its top priority. Bobb's team needs flexibility to staff classrooms with the best educators available. Poor children who have already fallen behind in school need better or just as good teachers as Birmingham and Ann Arbor have yet so often, research shows, they get the worst.

Can anyone, really, defend that morally unacceptable status quo?”

Keith Johnson, President of the Detroit Federation of Teachers, can and does.

Detroit News: Rebuttal: Don't eliminate teacher seniority (09/22/09)

I wanted to include this exchange because it shows the tremendous challenges facing anyone who attempts improve schools. I don’t share Arellano’s perspective on unions and their role, but I absolutely believe her piece was respectful and professional, and it covered a topic that merits reasonable discussion.

A defensive and bitter Keith Johnson stands in stark contrast.

If he is comfortable launching such a virulent public response towards someone offering an opinion, can you imagine what it must be like at negotiating sessions?

In his response, Johnson takes aim at the Arellano, jumping from point to point, sniping, without offering a rebuttal of the issues.

He appears to acknowledge that “poor proficiency of our students on standardized tests, the exaggerated dropout rate, the less-than-stellar graduation rate and other factors that plague Detroit schools” is a problem. Yet it’s a problem he attributes entirely to parents and the students themselves, with the schools sharing none of the blame.

He is disturbed by the comment, “Poor children who have already fallen behind in school need better or just as good teachers as Birmingham and Ann Arbor have yet so often, research shows, they get the worst.”

Yet Johnson doesn’t question the research on which Arellano based her comment. He doesn’t cite statistics – or any information for that matter – which refutes her statements.

Regarding teacher quality, he doesn’t even offer the traditional, dismissive brush-off that “there might be a few bad apples”.

And therein lies the problem. I’ve heard the arguments supporting seniority and tenure plenty of times, and they’re generally based on the premise that every teacher is equally great, and every administrator/principal is an idiot.

None are better teachers than others, and certainly none are worse.

Union supporters argue that they too believe bad teachers should be dismissed, but if they aren’t, then it’s the lazy principal’s fault. Perhaps.

But in their effort to ensure “due process”, union contracts and tenure laws go too far. Don’t believe me? Check out the blog post I made last year about a teacher that gave students test answers – BEFORE THE TEST – and the subsequent hoops that district had to jump through, in order to remove the teacher from the classroom.

Arellano was not trying to attack teachers in any way whatsoever. Her point is that Detroit – like every school district for that matter – requires greater flexibility in order to assign, hire, and yes even dismiss teachers based on proven skills, in order to best meet children’s instructional needs.

Sadly, this is a non-starter for teacher unions, who believe that the number of times a teacher has punched the time clock is a better criterion for classroom assignments, and is a perfectly acceptable measurement of quality.

Johnson adds that seniority is necessary because teachers need protection from racist principals who cannot make competent decisions, nor tolerate reasonable and constructive criticism.

Even playing the race-card doesn’t bolster his arguments. Johnson fails to consider the likelihood that Arrellano would probably agree that incompetent, egomaniacal, racist principals should also be weeded-out.

Johnson could’ve used this opportunity to make a stronger point about the need to make parents a partner in education. He could’ve found a better way to support the notion that principals must also be held accountable. But by completely dodging the discussion about teacher quality, he shows that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

==> Mike.

I've pasted the articles below, in case the links don't work.

Unionism needs to get rid of the stupid and get more of the smart

AMBER ARELLANO

I grew up in an union town where good people understood that they were stronger together than they were as individuals when it came to affecting change in the American political arena and elsewhere.

The United Auto Workers gave many in my family, mostly first-generation Mexican-Americans who worked in Pontiac's auto plants, a stake in America, a sense of belonging and a movement through which their aspirations and experiences could be struggled for and heard as a collective voice in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere.

Those roots, of which I am proud, make me incredibly grateful for unionism and the progress it's made for so many Americans.

But I cannot take any more stupid unionism.

When I say stupid, I mean unionism led by fear and selfish interests living in the past.

This fall some of Michigan's most powerful unionists have the opportunity to stop practicing stupid unionism.

I refer to the Detroit Federation of Teachers union, which is in heated negotiations with the Detroit Public Schools' Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb over the future of thousands of underserved Detroit students.

Detroit children are some of the poorest, most vulnerable children in North America. It is gut-wrenching to watch as the school district squanders their lives by providing them substandard schools.

To be sure, teachers are not the heart of this district's problems. Just take a look at the dysfunctional school board and its predatory practices, and that is clear.

However, the teachers are the heart of the district's way forward. Teacher quality is the No. 1 predictor of student achievement. Southeastern Michigan's future is partly tied to Detroit's educational success -- and teachers will lead it or take us down with them and their failing district.

That's why no one should underestimate this teacher contract's importance. The Bobb administration must get a contract that makes student performance -- not teacher protectionism -- its top priority.

Bobb's team needs flexibility to staff classrooms with the best educators available. Poor children who have already fallen behind in school need better or just as good teachers as Birmingham and Ann Arbor have yet so often, research shows, they get the worst.

Can anyone, really, defend that morally unacceptable status quo?

Smart unionism

Now some will defend all unions. More will attack unions, arguing that the U.S. should kill them off.

An America without unions is a scary idea. Just ask anyone whose company is hemorrhaging jobs and whose child is sick and needs health care. The only reason why many Americans still have things such as health insurance, eight-hour work days and unemployment is because of unions. And globalization challenges us to consider these issues anew.

Consider a new report, released appropriately on Labor Day, by the Michigan League for Human Services. It found that one in every five Michigan jobs do not pay enough to keep a family of four out of poverty -- about $22,000 a year.

Four of the six occupations with the most jobs fall into that category. Those are retail sales, cashiers, waiters and waitresses, and fast food or food prep workers.

"We know that many of these jobs are held by breadwinners -- not just students or teen-agers. A parent working full-time, year-round should be able to meet basic needs, but these very common jobs do not allow that," said Sharon Parks, the league's president and CEO.

The standard argument -- with which I agree -- is that in a new era of globalization, such lower-wage service workers have to retrain and retool for higher-skilled jobs.

There is another, darker side to the globalization story, however: The U.S. isn't creating enough good jobs to replace its faltering middle class. And many of the jobs we do create have lousy wages.

For that reason, we need a smart unionism that will help our country enact public policies that rebuild the middle class and people who want to be in it -- and kill off the old unionism that is dragging down so many good workers and school children with it.

Amber Arellano is a Detroit News editorial writer who writes a weekly online column. Contact her at aarellano@detnews.com">aarellano@detnews.com

Rebuttal: Don't eliminate teacher seniority

Just as sure as schoolchildren return to class the day after Labor Day, The Detroit News can be counted on to launch an unwarranted attack upon Detroit's teachers and their union, the Detroit Federation of Teachers. In her Sept. 8 column ("Unionism needs to get rid of the stupid and get more of the smart"), Amber Arellano wrote that "Detroit's children should get the best teachers like Ann Arbor and Birmingham, yet research shows they get the worst."

It is fashionable to attack the ability and competency of teachers in Detroit because of the poor proficiency of our students on standardized tests, the exaggerated dropout rate, the less-than-stellar graduation rate and other factors that plague Detroit schools.

However, it seems to be taboo to hold students responsible for coming to school and parents accountable for getting them there. Why don't people like Arellano speak out against the violence rendered by students against their peers and their teachers? Why isn't there an outcry about the high level of student transiency and truancy and their adverse effect upon student achievement?

Instead, Arellano calls Detroit's teachers the worst and criticizes the DFT for protecting the rights (not the jobs) of teachers. She attacks the DFT for protecting the seniority rights of teachers, not knowing or caring why seniority is such a sensitive issue.

Perhaps she is not aware that if seniority were eliminated, some teachers would be released because they have the audacity to stand up for children and themselves. They will criticize a principal who does not support the staff on matters of discipline, who plays favorites and misuses valuable district funds, or is never in the building.

Teachers who serve as building representatives or who are active with the union are often vilified by administrators as being obstructionists because they won't do a principal's bidding and be subservient.

Without seniority protection, some teachers would be eliminated, not because they are not doing the job, but because they are white. Yes, in 2009 we have some black administrators who do not believe white teachers should teach black children. Imagine the uproar if a white principal in Howell didn't believe white students should be taught by black teachers.

For Arellano's information, 87 percent of Detroit's teachers have a master's degree or above. Seventy-two percent (more than any other district in the state) have national board certification, and the vast majority of our teachers do more with less and make endless sacrifices on behalf of their students.

The DFT has made a commitment to embrace and implement innovative reform initiatives to drive student achievement. We will not, however, lie down and die so our members can be run over and run out.

Keith Johnson ,
President, Detroit Federation of Teachers

The Myths of a Stubborn Culture are Debunked

2009-09-13T08:38:00.004-05:00

Amber Arellano writes a insightful article about the stubbornness of Michigan’s entrenched educational bureaucrats, and the change-resistant culture that permeates Michigan’s K-12 education

Detroit News: Myths undercut efforts to boost Michigan's high school standards (09/10/09)

It goes on everywhere. I see it in Rochester.

For example, I know that the Rochester Board of Education shows no interest in understanding how many of it’s graduates must take remedial courses – at their own expense – in college, despite the fact that the district receives matriculation reports from some colleges. Individually, I’ve seen the reports that Michigan State University provides to each high school, and have suggested that the board review them, to no avail. This data is notably absent from the district’s so-called strategic plan.

The district could also do more to allow advance the concept of allowing more academically rigorous Personal Curriculums, yet submissively yields to needlessly restrictive interpretations, such as expecting kids to investigate summer school before they allow a modification. Rather that challenge the status quo, the board fell right in line.

I could go on, but I don’t want to distract from Amber’s excellent article.

All of this points to the fundamental flaw in the culture of Michigan educators, which is the myth that our children are simply not up to the challenge.

And it leads to perhaps a fifth myth, which is that there is nothing parents can do to take on the system. I wrote about Rochester parents who last year stood up to the culture of mediocrity and low-expectations by protesting the decision to “round down” students in the advanced math track in middle school. It was a small victory for a small number of children, but it shows that there is hope.

==> Mike.

I’ve pasted below the article in case the link does not work.

September 10, 2009

Myths undercut efforts to boost Michigan's high school standards

AMBER ARELLANO

This fall at Michigan's colleges, thousands of students are arriving with great expectations -- only to find themselves relegated to paying for high school courses without even receiving college credit. Those courses are called remedial classes, which students have to take because they were so poorly prepared in their K-12 schools.

At Michigan State University, the proportion of incoming freshmen who need remedial classes jumped to 28 percent today from 25 percent last year. At Delta College north of Saginaw, 81 percent of incoming students need remedial classes. That number has grown 3 percent in recent years.

The growth is a sign, some experts say, that Michigan school districts are not taking seriously the implementation of the new high school curriculum that state leaders adopted in 2006 to better prepare students to succeed in the knowledge economy. And it comes as Gov. Jennifer Granholm and state lawmakers fight over whether the tougher curriculum standards should be lowered to accommodate vocational education students and others.

With so much rhetoric, it can be difficult to figure out what is based on proven research and experience, and what isn't. Here are some common myths -- and the real story behind them -- about the high school curriculum.

MYTH No. 1: Only Michigan's lowest-performing school districts, such as Detroit and Pontiac, need to upgrade their high school courses.

FACT: Well-to-do and middle-class districts are under-preparing their children, too.

Take Rockford, the upscale suburban city outside of Grand Rapids, where most families send their children to four-year universities. What most parents in Rockford don't know: The district's latest state test scores show only 24 percent of its kids are college-ready in all subjects based on ACT indicators, which colleges use for admissions.

That suggests most of those students will have to take remedial classes, a predictor of college failure. A majority of students who need remedial classes do not earn either a bachelor's or an associate's degree, according to Education Policy Center experts at Michigan State University.

Mike Flanagan, state superintendent for schools, saw the same problem when he was in charge of Farmington Schools, a well-heeled suburban Oakland County district.

"People thought our students were doing so well because we sent 90 percent to college," Flanagan says.

Then he learned about half of those graduated from college. The knowledge spurred the district to make major changes.

"If you're sending students to college needing remedial classes, it means you're setting them up for failure not only in college but in the workplace," Flanagan says.

MYTH No. 2: All students have to take the same classes, including Algebra II and other high-level math and science classes, no matter what.

FACT: Vocational teachers and the Michigan Education Association union often call the curriculum a "one size fits all" approach. But state law does not require all students take the same specific courses. Rather, high school credits can be packaged into any course. The law allows flexibility for students who focus on the arts or, say, a trade.

Many parents don't know they can request a personal curriculum in which courses are specially designed for their teens.

Why does this seem to be a secret? Many schools and districts have dragged their feet on implementing the curriculum. Many schools also do not publicize these options.

MYTH No. 3: Michigan's dropout rate will go up under the new curriculum.

FACT: There's no evidence of that. The opposite has been found true in some states.

Arkansas, Arizona, Maryland and Massachusetts are among 25 states that now require Algebra II or equivalent skills learned to graduate, as Michigan does. None of their dropout rates has risen.

That fear arose in Michigan after Derrick Fries, an Eastern Michigan University assistant education professor, told reporters that he anticipated a rise in the dropout rate. However, more academic rigor has been found to raise graduation rates, according to the Education Trust and other researchers.

How could that be? Because boredom is one of the leading causes of dropping out. By making school more challenging, many students stay longer.

MYTH No. 4: Michigan's high school curriculum is one of the nation's toughest.

FACT: Other states are leading in school standards and quality. Indiana, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia and Massachusetts are just some of the states that have higher standards and more demanding high school curriculums than Michigan.

Indiana requires students take chemistry, physics and trigonometry, and more writing and foreign language than Michigan students do.

In Ohio, high-schoolers have to pass a competency test to graduate.

"There would be many high school students in Michigan who could not pass it," says Sharif Shakrani, co-director of Michigan State University's Education Policy Center.

In Maryland, the new high school standards are far tougher than Michigan's. They are modeled after the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the only nationally representative test that compares American students with one another by state.

The Obama administration is calling on states to adopt a common core of standards to make sure the United States better competes in the global economy. It is pushing states to ramp up their schools' curriculums to be modeled after the NAEP.

Already the Detroit Public Schools' new leadership team is adopting a curriculum modeled after the NAEP.

Barbara Byrd-Bennett, its academic chief and a respected national educational leader, says those who think Michigan's state curriculum is too tough are fooling themselves and shortchanging students.

Look at Michigan students' test scores for proof. Only about 30 percent of students are considered proficient under NAEP.

MYTH No. 5: The curriculum was designed for college-bound students -- not kids who aim to go into a trade or directly to the workplace.

FACT: Young people who attend community colleges, technical schools and other universities are actually more likely to be underprepared to succeed in life -- and need higher-skilled classes to make sure they do.

"A lot of people think if your kid is not going to the University of Michigan or Michigan State, then there are no negative consequences for not taking higher-level math and science classes," says Jim Ballard, executive director of the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals.

"This fight about the curriculum is about the students who go to Delta, to Grand Valley, to community colleges," Ballard adds. "They are the ones who need remedial courses, who are dropping out, who are not finding good jobs."

Even students going directly to entry-level jobs or entering technical schools need higher-level thinking and math skills, researchers have found across the country.

The more math Americans learn, research shows, the more money they earn. Students who take challenging high school courses, especially in math and science, will earn $1 million more than students who do not.

Algebra II, in particular, is a predictor of success in college and in getting a good job in the knowledge economy -- more than race, socioeconomic status or family income.

The Wacker Chemical plant in Adrian is a case in point. Factory leaders found local high school graduates woefully lacking skills to work there a few years ago. They teamed up with school leaders to change that.

"My question to the legislators who want to undermine the math requirements in the state curriculum is: 'What kind of jobs do you want in Michigan? Do you want your children to get good jobs or any job at all? Look at Ohio and see what they're doing,' " MSU's Shakrani says.

"Because that's who we're competing with: Ohio and Indiana. And they are out-competing us in school preparation."

E-mail Amber Arellano at aarellano@detnews.com">aarellano@detnews.com or send letters to the editor to letters@detnews.com">letters@detnews.com or mail to Letters, Editorial Page, The Detroit News, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226.

Additional Facts
Importance of education
Why Michigan's high school curriculum standards are considered critical:

Nine of 10 jobs will require education beyond high school, according to the Michigan Department of Education.

An estimated 80,000 jobs go unfilled in Michigan and an additional 30,940 jobs could go unfilled in the near future, according to a 2007 EPIC/MRA future business study. This indicates Michigan's high rate of unemployment has more to do with a lack of necessary education and training among residents than a lack of employment opportunities.

The state Department of Education finds that 84 percent of those who hold highly paid professional jobs had taken Algebra II or higher as their last high school math course.

The more math you learn, the more money you earn. Students who take challenging high school courses, especially in math and science, will earn more than $1 million more than students receiving a general education, according to the Michigan Department of Education.

Studies indicate there is a strong correlation between increases in average test scores and national economic growth. In country after country, a boost in test performance was linked to a distinct rise in annual per capita gross domestic product growth, according to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

A study by the Michigan League for Human Services and the Economic Policy Institute forecasts a decline in U.S. per-capita personal income if America doesn't educate "all of our students well."

Obama's Back-to-School Speech... Government Required Viewing?

2009-09-06T08:23:00.011-05:00

The Rochester Community Schools district decided not to run President Obama's back-to-school "live", but will instead run it during the high school lunches the next day.

The decision aims to minimize school distruption, and was driven out of respect for parental choice. It was not made based on the anticipated content of the speech, nor was it made on the questionable study guides issued by the White House.

Now that the decision has been made, it should not cause a round of “high-fives” for conservatives, nor should it drive indignant and angry name-calling by liberals. Both camps, quite frankly, need to put ideology aside and try to think of what’s best for children.

And while some argue that the positive message planned for the speech will be lost… that’s simply not true. The address will be widely available, and can still be discussed, even if it’s not viewed “live”. Actually, the fact that it’s not being aired “live” can serve as a teachable moment too, driving discussions about parental rights, civil discourse, protest, and government intervention.

I fully intend to watch it with my children, and encourage other parents to do so as well. But I cannot support the notion that children should be forced to watch it.

BACKGROUND

The school board was informed of the district’s decision and the underlying rationale. A significant number of parents had expressed concern… enough that showing the address would could potentially disrupt the first day of school. Because it was the first day, there was no effective way to create an “opt-in” or “opt-out” process.

The district had been put in the unenviable position of either disappointing parents by showing it, or disappointing parents by not showing it.

The district – ultimately believing that respect for parental choice trumps everything else – crafted a compromise. The president's address will not interrupt the first day of school, but will be recorded and shown during high school lunch the following day for those students who would like to watch it. And, a link to the address will be posted on the district website.

This reasonable compromise does not mandate that children watch the broadcast, yet it provides an option for doing so.

The only change I see is that children will not see the address live, but will instead watch it with their families (which is better, in my opinion), or they’ll view it the next day.

And for the record… this had nothing to do with political ideology, but was instead based on respect for parents. Let’s be honest here… if it were about ideology alone then it’s most likely that a speech from a liberal president would be shown, regardless of the consequences. Educators and school boards are generally far more liberal than they are conservative, and Rochester is no exception.

THE CONTROVERSY

TIME magazine offered an interesting view of the underlying dynamics driving this controversy:

TIME: Schools to Big Brother Barack: Stay Out! (09/04/09)

The heart of the battle -- at least in my mind -- is that the administration arguably erred when they started to make this about the President, and not soley about the value of education. (And it's really a shame, because their "study guides" distracted from a good speech. You can read it here.)

From the TIME article:

Thanks in large part to the Administration's ham-handed advance work, the strident conservative anger that erupted this summer over health-care reform has shifted from town halls to school halls. On the surface, Obama's intentions for Tuesday seem nothing more threatening than a presidential pep talk about taking education seriously. But some ill-advised prep material from the Education Department — like suggestions that teachers have students write letters on "how to help the President" and recommendations that those pupils read his books — has left the door ajar (and that's all it seems to take these days) for Republican charges that Obama "wants to indoctrinate our kids," as Clara Dean, GOP chairwoman of Florida's Collier County, puts it.

But if there is one conservative criticism that even liberals can relate to, it's that the speech seems part of this President's overexposure. "Every time you turn around, there he is, there he is, there he is," Dean groused. And lately at least, every time Obama turns around, he seems to give conservatives an opening to pounce on him.

Commentator Mark Steyn drew stronger parallels by comparing it to Iraq. Certainly hyperbolic, but I'm including it because it helps to clearly punctuate the concern.

Investors.com: Obama 'Outreach' To School Kids Feels More Like Personality Cult (09/04/09)

In 2003, motoring around western Iraq a few weeks after the regime's fall, when the schoolhouses were hastily taking down the huge portraits of Saddam that had hung on every classroom wall, I visited an elementary-school principal with a huge stack of suddenly empty picture frames piled up on his desk, and nothing to put in them.

The education system's standard first-grade reader featured a couple of kids called Hassan and Amal — a kind of Iraqi Dick and Jane — proudly holding up their portraits of the great man and explaining the benefits of an Iraqi education:

"O come, Hassan," says Amal. "Let us chant for the homeland and use our pens to write, 'Our beloved Saddam.'"

"I come, Amal," says Hassan. "I come in a hurry to chant, 'O, Saddam, our courageous president, we are all soldiers defending the borders for you, carrying weapons and marching to success.'"

Pathetic, right?

On Friday, Aug. 28, the principal of Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington, Utah — in the name of "education" — showed her young charges the "Obama Pledge" video released at the time of the inauguration, in which Ashton Kutcher and various other big-time celebrities, two or three of whom you might even recognize, "pledge to be a servant to our president and to all mankind because together we can, together we are, and together we will be the change that we seek."

Altogether now! Let us chant for mankind and use our pens to write, "O beloved Obama, our courageous president, we are all servants defending the hope for you and marching to change."

To accompany President Obama's classroom speech this week, the White House and America's "educators" drafted some accompanying study materials. Children would be invited to write letters to themselves saying what they could do to "help the President."

Certainly everyone does not agree with these perspectives, but enough parents are concerned, and took the time to express those concerns to the district.

And it’s not that those expressing concerns have “hijacked” the district. Schools have a responsibility and obligation to try to honor the reasonable wishes of the communities they serve. When conflicts arise, the district must do what it can to craft compromises.

I don’t believe it’s the school’s job to get itself embroiled in a effort to unconditionally defend the President. Nor do I believe this decision is designed to rebuff or embarrass the President, or “protect” the children from the President. I see this is a non-political attempt to respect diversity and parental choice, and to focus on effectively running schools without disruption.

THE FEEDBACK

As is the case with almost anything involving schools, compromise is hard to achieve. I thought I’d share some of arguments I’ve heard on both sides.

INDOCTRINATION: Had the district shown the address live, it would’ve been accused of attempting to indoctrinate children. Really? President Obama can be persuasive, and children may not have fully developed critical thinking skills, but I don’t think a 20-minute speech to the nations youth is going to change our form of government.

RACISM: According to some, the only possible reason that the district decided to “censor” the speech is because of hysterical, right-wing, gun-toting bigotry and racism. If the President were white, the address would have been delivered. This is so incredibly unfounded that I’m not sure how to respond. Is this argument going to be dragged out every time someone questions this President?

HITLER: Both sides are dragging out Hitler/fascism accusations. Hitler brainwashed and controlled the German youth, and this address is Obama’s attempt to do the same. Ironically, the opposite is apparently true as well: by not broadcasting the address live, the district is embracing the book-burning, thought-controlling fascism of Nazi Germany.

HISTORICAL LOSS: Rochester is being accused of denying students a chance to participate in an incredible moment in history. I think the erupting controversy has greatly exaggerated the significance of the address. The President's address to a joint session of Congress the next night is historically significant, but this is not. And while I fully support the ideas and values of hard work and disipline that will reportedly be covered in Obama's back-to-school address, I think the historical significance of this speech is being blown way out of proportion.

DISRESPECT: President Obama is OUR President, and regardless of political beliefs he should be shown respect. By “censoring” or "banning" the speech, the district is being disrespectful. One parent seriously suggested that the district not only mandate the viewing, but the the district "command silence" as it was aired. Opponents counter with the “slippery slope’ argument, which suggests that a precedent is being established for unlimited presidential access to the nations children, thus inviting other politicians -- governors, county executives, or even local mayors -- to expect similar “opportunities” to reach American's youth.

INSPIRATIONAL & UPLIFTING: Why is the district afraid of an uplifting, motivational speech about working hard and staying in school? Let’s set aside the question of how people know exactly what the President will say, and the presumption that he will indeed be inspirational. The premise of this accusation is that the decision about airing the address live was content-based. It simply wasn’t.

UNPRECEDENTED: In 1988, President Ronald Reagan gave an interactive interview to schoolchildren. In 1991, President Bush (41) made a speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urging students to study hard, focus on math and science, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers. It's asserted that both did so with out objection, so clearly President Obama is a victim of partisan politics. Again, it was respect for parental choice, and not content or party affiliation that drove the decision. But beyond that, Presidents Reagan and Bush most certainly faced plenty of objections from Democrats. Notably, former Democrat House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) was quoted as saying, "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students, and the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.' "

INTELLECTUAL COWARDS: By “censoring” the President, Rochester is showing how it is afraid to expose children to different views. Yet, if the district does broadcast the address live, then it is buying into the President’s “infomercial” that is really designed to increase his popularity. Both are quite a stretch, in my opinion. And again, the decision had nothing to do with the content.

In the end, the RCS School Board did not make this decision, but I am comfortable defending the compromise. Children can still watch the address.

Were the district to have made the opposite choice – to air the address live – I would instead need to be defending what could be a substantial disruption of school, as well as the notion that the school was all but forcing children to listen to their president -- perhaps in "commanded silence". I just can’t go there.

==> Mike.

Keep Parents Empowered!

2009-09-02T08:51:00.006-05:00

Read this article:

The Detroit News: Parents, not teachers, should make lifetime decisions on their kids' future (09/01/09)

Then, find your Senator, and send them an email telling them to you want higher standards for your children, and do not want your local school district to water down your child’s education. Tell them the Geiss bill should not be adopted without modification.

When it comes to providing children with the college-prep skills they need to succeed in college, and ultimately our knowledge-based economy, local school boards were simply not getting the job done.

The state legislature created new high school graduation requirements that fill that void.

One of the provisions of the new requirements was an “escape clause”. It recognizes that a presumably small number of students might not be able to fulfill the requirements. Students with severe learning disabilities, for example, might struggle.

As written, the “Personal Curriculum Modification” allows a parent to approach the school and requires a personal curriculum, essentially opting out of the state requirements. It was intended to be a deliberative process, involving the parent, teachers, counselors, and administrators.

While there are good compromise aspects in the legislation, this new Geiss bill would ultimately move the decision making from the parents to the teachers, and that is wrong.

It’s not a question of an individual teacher’s ability to evaluate a child. It’s instead about the institutional power. There are undoubtedly teachers who would make a careful and thoughtful decision, but there are also teachers who would not.

I’ve personally witnessed too many incidents of educators trying to lower the bar for children. Empowering them to unilaterally establish lower expectations is a lifetime sentence, and is a step backwards.

==> Mike.

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

Editorial: Parents, not teachers, should make lifetime decisions on their kids' future
The Detroit News

Michigan teachers and lawmakers have debated for more than two years about the state's new high school curriculum. Now Lansing may have developed a sensible compromise bill, but it goes too far by gutting the rights of parents to make life-altering decisions about their children's futures.

The state House passed Rep. Douglas Geiss' bill 4511 last week. It is designed to make it easier for students to obtain permission to take a personal curriculum to graduate from high school. The authors of the original curriculum allowed for any Michigan student to request a personal curriculum out of respect to the diversity of students and their interests.

Current law rightly allows only parents or a legal guardian to request a personal curriculum. Policymakers worried, with good reason, that if teachers had the power to determine a student's high school coursework without a parent's consent, some would abuse it. Teachers who did not want to upgrade their skills and adapt to the new curriculum instead could lobby students to take easier classes -- even though that could be at the student's expense.

Those concerns have proven to be valid. A small but vocal minority of teachers have remained resistant to adopting the state curriculum. Instead many have fought it, arguing they shouldn't have to change despite the fact that more and more Michigan students are poorly prepared to compete for Knowledge Economy jobs.

The Geiss bill, a political compromise, contains some reasonable ideas, including the option of allowing a teacher to help parents develop a personal curriculum for their child.

But the bill goes far too far by allowing teachers to make life-altering decisions for students. No one but parents should determine their child's high school curriculum. The consequences are too far-reaching. What coursework a student takes in high school is a predictor for their success in college, most trades classes and their livelihoods later.

The Senate should make sure this bill does not gut parents' rights. Any compromise should not compromise the future of Michigan's children.

A History of Ignoring Smart Kids

2009-08-29T09:19:00.005-05:00

Take the time to read this. Authors Loveless and Petrilli have contributed so much to the effort of improving schools, and they knock it out of the park with this New York Times piece:

The New York Times: Smart Child Left Behind (08/27/09)

It is this very topic that motivated me to become involved in education: I don't believe my public school adequately challenges all children.

I have been attempting to fight this shortcoming my entire time on the school board, beginning four years ago with my nationally recognized study on Advanced Placement in Michigan, up to the recent post on “Academically Waterboarding Middle School Math Students.” There are numerous examples of this deficiency chronicled on this blog under the heading RIGOR on the right.

As of the time of this writing, Rochester Community Schools still has no district initiatives whatsoever to insure that all children are adequately challenged. I have pushed at every opportunity to spotlight this fact, but unfortunately the best that I’ve been able to achieve is some weakly worded generic language in a list of un-measurable district goals.

While the school board is to blame, the ultimate root cause is that parents have not communicated any expectations to their school board, and do not hold them accountable when examples are provided of school board failures.

Until parents and other stakeholders take the time to let the school board know that they have high expectations for their children – and refuse to accept generic board answers – we can only expect more of the same.

==> Mike

Here is the article in case the link does not work:

New York Times
Op-Ed Contributors
Smart Child Left Behind
By TOM LOVELESS and MICHAEL J. PETRILLI
AS American children head back to school, the parents of the most academically gifted students may feel a new optimism: according to a recent study, the federal No Child Left Behind law is acting like a miracle drug. Not only is it having its intended effect — bettering the performance of low-achieving students — it is raising test scores for top students too.

This comes as quite a surprise, as ever since the law was enacted in 2002, analysts and educators have worried that gifted pupils would be the ones left behind. While the law puts extraordinary pressure on schools to lift the performance of low-achieving students, it includes no incentives to accelerate the progress of high achievers.

Yet the new study, by the independent Center on Education Policy, showed that more students are reaching the “advanced” level on state tests now than in 2002. This led the authors to conclude that there is little evidence that high-achieving students have been shortchanged.

If only that were so. But like many miracle-drug claims, this conclusion is deeply flawed, for several reasons.

First, under the federal law, state tests are supposed to measure whether students are meeting grade-level expectations — whether the average third grader knows the mathematics taught through third grade. But high achievers usually work above grade level, so the state tests are very poor instruments for measuring how well top students are learning.

Second, the way the study’s analysts depicted state trends creates a misleading national picture. They calculated “trend lines” in each state — for example, whether more fourth graders in Georgia reached the “advanced” level in math, whether they made gains in reading and so on for each grade and subject.

For their conclusions, they added together all the up, down and sideways trends to give a national snapshot, saying that 83 percent of trend lines showed gains, while 15 percent showed declines. The problem with this system is that it treats all states equally, regardless of size. So a gain among high-performing students in North Dakota has the same weight as one in California, which has more than 60 times as many students.

Third, the analysis does not compare today’s students with those of earlier eras. High-achieving students might be making incremental progress — but is this new? If they were making similar gains before 2002, then might recent progress have nothing to do with No Child Left Behind? And how did their progress compare with trends for lower-achieving students?

Thankfully, there is a more suitable tool to help answer such questions: the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which tracks achievement changes in 4th, 8th and 12th graders across the country. It found relatively little progress among our highest-achieving students (those in the top 10 percent) from 2000 to 2007, while the bottom 10 percent made phenomenal gains. For example, in eighth-grade math, the lowest-achieving students made 13 points of progress on the national-assessment scale from 2000 to 2007 — roughly the equivalent of a whole grade. Top students, however, gained just five points.

We also learned something from the data from the 1990s. For the most part, both high- and low-achievers made tepid annual gains. But there was one exception: In the states that already had accountability systems similar to those that would eventually be required by No Child Left Behind, there were much larger gains at the bottom than at the top.

So what does all of this mean? It is clear that No Child Left Behind is helping low-achieving students. But it is also obvious that high-achieving students — who suffer from benign neglect under the law — have been making smaller gains, much as they did before it was enacted. Alas, this drug is producing no miracles.

No doubt, some will claim victory: We are closing the achievement gap between our top and bottom students! But is that our only national goal in education? What might happen if federal law encouraged educators to improve the performance of all students? Our analysis of the federal data identified tens of thousands of high achievers who are black, Hispanic or poor. They are excelling at their studies, often against great odds. Shouldn’t we be addressing their educational needs?

As we look for ways to improve No Child Left Behind, we must recognize that our top students still have much to learn.

Tom Loveless is a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a member of the task force on K-12 education at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Michael J. Petrilli is the vice president for national programs and policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

State of Denial

2009-08-26T10:15:00.002-05:00

Oftentimes it's a sad truth that someone on a self-destructive path never really hits bottom until they experience that one defining moment that makes them wake up to the reality that they alone are the cause of their own problems.

School boards live in that state of denial.

In Rochester, for example, the school board has not passed a balanced budget in any one of the five years I served on the board. Each year a majority of board members were OK with approving a budget with deficit spending. The board made some cuts this year – half of which came from cutting the pay of bus drivers and custodians by 25% -- but the board was still unable to balance the budget. The district is pondering a $12 million dollar deficit next year.

Yet somehow the board is receptive to the idea of paying $10,000 to hang a historical mural in the boardroom.

Granted, the $10K isn’t going to materially change the budget picture. But the message it sends is very clear.

And it leaves one wondering what other types of non-essential or non-productive spending is going on.

Perhaps State Superintendent Mike Flanagan offers a glimmer of hope, now that he finally put his foot down on school board budgeting nonsense. I wonder how the lesson learned here might be able to be applied on a broader basis.

The Madison School District in Madison Heights Michigan has apparently been working on a deficit reduction plan since 1994, yet cannot produce a balanced budget.

Let’s ignore the fact that it’s a 1500 pupil district, and one of two small districts in this suburban community, and could undoubtedly save money through consolidation (of district operations, not schools).

The more illustrative point is that they’ve been unable to solve this problem for 15 years!

And amazingly, when the state superintendent finally threatens to hold them accountable, they are able to come up with a plan.

But of course, the school board lives in denial, blaming others for their problems.

Perhaps the silliest comment came from the district’s attorney, who said, “Lansing doesn’t understand the fallout those (budget cutting) options can have for generations to come. The board is looking a more methodical change over time.”

How much time? Since this deficit problem first started, there have now been two or three classes of kids who started out in kindergarten and have since graduated!

And talk about “generations”… the education of the children in the district NOW will be impacted because of the failure of the board to address the deficit over the past 15 years.

Given the legislative bumbling that goes on at the state level, I’m not convinced that Lansing is the ideal answer. But the current status quo – your local school board – clearly demonstrates time and time again that local control is out of control.

Here are a couple of links on the Madison situation:

Detroit Free Press: Deficits have Madison Heights board members facing jail time (8/18/09)

Oakland Press: Madison District Avoids Payless Paydays (8/25/09)

Deficits have Madison Heights board members facing jail time

BY BILL LAITNER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Faced with an unprecedented threat of jail and fines by the state's top educator, school board members of the Madison School District in Madison Heights passed a plan Monday night aimed at averting the penalties.

The plan, to offset a $1.35-million deficit, rests on tentative agreements with the district's unions and other workers to accept a 5% overall cut in human resources for the next three years. The savings would come from a combination of pay and benefits cuts, job reassignments and lower head count achieved through retirements and resignation -- without layoffs, board attorney George Butler said.

"This will be sent to the Michigan Department of Education," on Tuesday "and will await the response," said district Superintendent Gary Vettori.

The district has been operating under a state-approved deficit elimination plan since 1994.

Last month, Superintendent of Public Instruction Michael Flanagan sent the board a letter indicating that if the district didn't submit a revised budget by Thursday, "it will be prudent for me to invoke one or more of the penalties" that include jail and fines.

If the penalties were imposed, it would have been the first time a school board endured jail and criminal fines allowed under a state law on fiscal responsibility, said state Department of Education spokeswoman Jan Ellis.

The state has withheld more than $800,000 in aid from the total of $9 million allocated to the district for 2008-09, Ellis said.

Board members, who recently gave up their $30-per-meeting pay, said they were stunned by the threats and doing all they could to keep afloat the district of fewer than 1,500 students.

Workers have made repeated concessions and Vettori took a 5% cut to $114,000.

Refocusing Energy!

2009-08-14T15:57:00.003-05:00

Five years on a local school board has delivered a lifetime's worth of lessons on what is best & worst about 'local control'.

By helping to shape the dialog and direction, I believe I’ve had a positive impact on our schools. My focus at the board table, my personal advocacy efforts with the public, and my voting record clearly demonstrates my commitment to the merits of increased rigor, fiscal responsibility, safety, and transparency.

I’m proud of my efforts to make schools accountable to parents, students, and taxpayers, but have concluded that the opportunities to achieve these goals are limited on this local school board.

The forces attempting to preserve the status quo are powerful, committed, and far superior in numbers. Actually, school boards mirror the polarizing political climate at the state and national level, where a dominating majority controls the agenda and offers no room for compromise.

On Tuesday, I entered my name as a candidate for re-election, hoping that one or more new candidates might emerge that could stand with me in my efforts to reform and improve our schools, and prepare for the challenges ahead.

But at this point, with the candidate field now defined, I’ve decided to withdraw my name and refocus my energy. Armed with my knowledge of the system, and freed from the petty politics, I believe I can be more effective in my efforts to increase public awareness of the issues facing schools, while continuing to attempt to introduce ideas to school leaders.

To Rubberstamp or Compromise, that is the question!

2009-08-08T18:31:00.006-05:00

I had received enough FACEBOOK invitations requests that I finally decided to setup an account. If you haven’t done so, you should! It’s very active, although it can be very distracting. Mine's here.

Anyway, in the process of searching for friends I stumbled across a few fairly recent articles about my friend Melanie Kurdys, a Board Trustee in Portage Michigan.

Mlive: Portage school board: Same song, new verse (06/01/09)

Mlive: Tensions linked to trustee aired during Portage school board retreat (07/15/09)

Melanie is an outstanding trustee, one who works tirelessly to reform an education system that is simply not very effective by any measure. I wrote about her efforts to address the fact that many high school graduates must take remedial math in college. The article can be found here.

She’s being exposed to the same complaints many reformers face, which is that she should simply sit at the table and vote “AYE”.

I posted these two articles because they provide great insight into the ugly world of school politics.

The articles are sad because they show a clear divide in the district. You can read the comments posted on the newspaper site, and see there are those who root for the majority, and those who root for the underdog. It should not be a contest, at least not like this.

Unless that board majority can learn to compromise, then the community will stay divided and ultimately the children will lose.

The articles focus on the tired old debate about whether a trustee should actively understand an issue before voting, or whether they should instead simply rubber stamp whatever is put in front of them.

This is exactly the problem we have in Washington right now, where the Obama Administration wants Congress to pass bills without reading them.

I fail to understand the logic in the rubber-stamp approach. If the administration’s proposals cannot withstand a little scrutiny, then maybe they shouldn’t advance them.

And if a majority of board members don’t want to understand what they are approving, then they are free to change policy so that the administration has more leeway and the board has less oversight. Or, they can conduct offline study sessions or sub-committee meetings, where the administration can make its case to those board members who are interested in understanding the issues before they approve it.

But instead, this Portage board whines about Melanie asking reasonable questions. They call it “micromanaging”. They hope to bully Melanie into capitulation.

Furthermore, they offer the absurd claim that, “You're holding almost the whole school district hostage." How is that possible if they have a 6 to 1 majority? They are free to ignore Melanie, as is done when the autocratic board President Shirley Johnson says, "We're moving on." (That's happened to me several times, where board members have been OK with "Calling the Question", which according to Robert's Rule ends discussion.)

So why exactly is this an issue for the Portage board?

Because Melanie goes against the cultural grain of their "social club", which expects members to not only go along, but go along happily and quietly.

Melanie is doing neither. She asks intelligent questions – questions the board cannot ignore – and they resent her for that.

But it's more than just petty resentment. The heart of the problem – and I see this whenever you have a reform-minded trustee on a school board – is that the status quo majority doesn’t compromise. Either they don’t know how, or don’t want to.

If they don’t want to, well, then that’s the end of the story.

But I often wonder whether school board troubles are caused by the fact that trustees don’t know how to compromise.

So here are some suggestions for Portage:

1) Believe that compromise is important. Board trustees like those in Portage offer an interesting logical conflict. They have the majority, and can do whatever they want. But that is not enough for them. They not only want to have it their way, but they don’t want anyone to complain about it. If they truly want to eliminate the complaints, then they need to forge solutions in which everyone has some skin in the game.

2) Stop viewing issues in isolation. If a particular item only has an “either/or” option, then try to couple a few items together. This might allow for a little “give and take”, which is the fundamental ingredient in compromise. You might never get all trustees to support everything, but if each trustee is satisfied that the compromise is in some way advancing an objective they find important, then you are likely to see a substantial reduction in the volume and frequency of objections.

3) If it’s clear that there is substantial disagreement on an issue, then consider tabling it for a meeting, in an effort to find some common ground (see suggestion 1 & 2 above!).

Many school issues have no “right or wrong” answers, but are instead more a matter of perspective or philosophy. This leads to messy school politics, and that is not likely to change. However, the present practice of the majority exerting absolute rule without regard to compromise is a proven loser.

I've pasted below the articles in case the links don't work.

==> Mike.

Portage school board: Same song, new verse
Posted by jmack June 01, 2009 23:04PM
Are we surprised that things got a bit tense during Monday's Portage school board meeting?

No.

Are we surprised the squabbling was sparked by whether Melanie Kurdys, in the opinion of her fellow board members, was trying to micromanage?

No again.

It's a familiar pattern. And, incidentally, another interpretation of the tussle is that Kurdys was asking questions in the interest of accountability and transparency, only to be slapped down by her colleagues.

I report. You decide.

First, Kurdys asked about the proposed traffic pattern for the new Central High School, which has been repeatedly criticized as unsafe by Portage resident Bob Schafer. Superintendent Marsha Wells and others told Kurdys that state and city officials had signed off on the traffic plan, but Kurdys said she wanted to see the paperwork herself, saying it was possible that state officials had approved the plan while expressing reservations. When Trustee Dale Posthumus suggested, in effect, that Kurdys overstepping her bounds, she said she was willing to file a Freedom of Information Act request if need be.

Then came a discussion about the brickwork for the new Central High School. One of the bidders was upset his bid had gotten rejected, and the construction managers said it was because the project called for extra-large bricks and they wanted to go with a firm experienced with making that particular size. Kurdys suggested that perhaps the real problem was the design of the school, and questioned the use of the extra-large bricks, saying her research found those kind of bricks can lead to leakage around windows.

The other board members seemed openly exasperated, saying they weren't going to second-guess the administration and the building contractors about the school design at this point. "This is not a board-level decision," Vice President Jennifer Whistler said. "If we get into this, we're opening a can of worms."

Then came Round Three, when the board was briefed on a proposal for technology for the new Twelfth Street Elementary. Kurdys said that perhaps installing new technology for teachers at the new school is a big mistake, considering that the staff already will be adjusting to a new building, a new student body and a new districtwide math curriculum. Plus, Kurdys questioned if the new technology would actually improve student outcomes, and how the district would collect data to establish that fact.

At that point, the other board members didn't even pretend to hide their annoyance. "To say, 'Why are we doing this?' is to revisit a decision made a year and a half ago," board President Shirley Johnson said. "We're moving on."

Tensions linked to trustee aired during Portage school board retreat
Posted by Julie Mack Kalamazoo Gazette July 15, 2009 22:47PM

KALAMAZOO -- A Portage school-board retreat on Wednesday resembled "Survivor" crossed with C-Span.

In the midst of a day spent talking about policy governance, the seven trustees on the Portage Public Schools Board of Education and Superintendent Marsha Wells engaged in a frank airing of grievances and a candid discussion about board tensions.
Six trustees, including two who have been on the board for less than eight months, suggested the board was being paralyzed by the actions of the seventh trustee, Melanie Kurdys.

"I have to say, in my 36 years of professional life, I've never seen one person so totally dominate an organization," said Trustee John Whyte, who joined the board in December. "This is a nonfunctioning board, and we don't get things done, Melanie, because all of us are too busy trying to satisfy your wants and your needs. ... You're holding almost the whole school district hostage."

Kurdys, who was elected in 2007 on a platform of transparency and accountability, considers herself the board watchdog, making frequent requests for information and seeking public input on school-district matters large and small.

During the two board meetings in June, for instance, Kurdys questioned the traffic-safety plan and choice of bricks for the new Portage Central High School, the installation of state-of-the art technology in 12th Street Elementary, which is to open next month, and various budget issues.

Other trustees said Wednesday that they appreciate her perspective but not her approach. They criticized Kurdys for micromanaging administration; monopolizing board discussions, leaving little time for others to talk; launching surprise attacks at board meetings; and making public comments that undermined fellow trustees and administrators. They also said she often resurrects old disputes, preventing the board from moving forward.

For her part, Kurdys said the board has a history of trying to silence dissent. "Individuals who see things differently than the majority either end up quitting or leaving bitter," she said. "It seems like this board spends a lot of time trying to control me."

Trustee Randy Borden, who was elected in May, said he ran for office without taking sides but that he already sees why other trustees are displeased with Kurdys.
He said he was startled, for instance, that during last month's vote on the district's budget, that Kurdys turned to the audience and said, "No one is accountable for this budget." Borden said the comment left the impression that the administration and board are not to be trusted.

"The grandstanding that goes on at meetings is continuous," Vice President Dale Posthumus said to Kurdys. "It seems at every turn you're taking some opportunity to make the school district look bad."

Kurdys said she is raising important issues. "Do you really think I'm intentionally trying to find things wrong in the district?" she said. "Why would I do that?"
She said, however, that she appreciated the honesty of her fellow board members in addressing the "elephant in the room."

"I see the pieces I need to do to be more effective in getting my ideas into the room," she said at the end of the retreat.

Prodded by facilitator Mike Washburn, a retired superintendent from Forest Hills, Kurdys and other trustees agreed to several procedures to help ensure board meetings stay focused and respectful. For instance, when a board member brings up issues that others feel are not board-level matters, they agreed they will decide as a group whether to discuss them or move on.

At the end of the seven-and-a-half-hour retreat, trustees agreed the meeting was helpful and offered optimism.

"I see the change in the atmosphere already," Secretary Deb Polderman said. Then she added, "but we've said that before."

MEA contractual “firewall” blocks assessment data

2009-08-02T09:44:00.006-05:00

Interesting article from the left coast:

LA Times: Obama chides California for not using test scores to evaluate teachers (07/25/09)

It spotlights a bizarre and well-entrenched failing of the education system: the reluctance – even resistance – towards the use of data when evaluating teachers.

This debate has been escalated by a new federal program called “Race to the Top”, which is described in The Economic Times:

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama has announced a race for $4.35 billion in federal grants to improve academic achievement and reverse a decline in American public schools to meet increasing competition from countries like India and China.

"In an economy where knowledge is the most valuable commodity a person and a country have to offer, the best jobs will go to the best educated, whether they live in the United States, or India, or China," Obama said announcing the competition Friday.

"In a world where countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow, the future belongs to the nation that best educates its people," he said in an address at the Department of Education. "We have talked about it for decades but we know that we have not made the progress we need to make."

Dubbed the "Race to the Top," the competition aims to ease limits on charter schools, which receive public funding but generally are exempt from some state or local rules and regulations, link teacher pay to student achievement and move toward common US academic standards.

A good discussion can be found in this education trade magazine article:

Eduweek: 'Race to Top' Guidelines Stress Use of Test Data (07/23/09)

The use of data in decision-making is a major component of this effort, and it’s going to be interesting to see how this concept plays. It’s a common sense concept, but one that is counter-culture in education, and is clearly opposed by teacher unions.

Some (many?) educators are opposed to the use of data analysis, instead believing the data comparison is not fair because each student is unique. Another common argument is that students may know the material, but simply not be able to demonstrate mastery in a structured test environment.

I don’t want to be completely dismissive of those concerns, but they fundamentally suggest that the teacher alone should the sole judge of whether the teacher has been successful, ultimately making them accountable to, well, only themselves.

The “Race to the Top” will force discussion of this topic because it includes grant money – the mothers milk in education – and it’s guidelines will likely exclude states like California and New York, which bar the use of data in evaluating teachers.

While Michigan (and most other states) don't specifically bar the use of data in evaluations, the real roadblocks are established at the local level.

In Rochester, for example, meaningful data is scarce, especially at the secondary level. Teachers don’t use common assessments, meaning that there is no common measuring tool within the district, or even with a building. The effort and achievement required to earn a “B” in one teacher’s class might’ve gotten a student an “A” or a “C” with another teacher. This hardly seems fair, and it inherently prevents effective and objective comparison.

There is a district-level effort in Rochester to move towards common assessments, but it’s reportedly meeting strong resistance. Like most things in education, it’s moving at a glacial pace. The progress is not clear, and the outcome is far from inevitable. It calls into question how serious the district really is about the use of data in decision-making.

It’s sad news, given the potential benefits.

At a minimum, it would insure that achievement in a class would be measured by common standards, and not the unique standards of an individual teacher. An “A” in a particular class would mean the same thing within the district, regardless of which high school or which teacher bestowed it.

Furthermore, common assessments would provide building leaders and district leaders with a macro view of curriculum success, and provide insight on where the district should concentrate efforts on improving instructional resources or professional development.

Consider an example where six teachers of varying experience levels, in different buildings, administer a common assessment, and most of the students tested fail to demonstrate mastery of a particular concept. Those results would serve as an indicator that the district curriculum specialists need to better support the teachers by focusing attention on that particular concept.

But apparently those benefits are outweighed by the risk that the data might reflect poorly on certain teachers.

In that same example, consider if five out of six teachers consistently achieve comparable results, and the remaining teacher consistently performs below far below those other five. This data alone would not suggest that the one teacher is ineffective, but it would certainly serve as a red flag.

Having common assessments – and common achievement data – would inherently establish achievement norms for teachers, and is presumably one of the primary reasons it’s unacceptable to teacher unions.

Whatever the reason, this common sense use of data goes against the grain of education norms, and opposition to the use of data remains a significant plank in the MEA platform.

In Rochester, the union has a built-in “firewall” in the teacher contract designed to “protect” teachers from data. Section 8.21 of the contract states, “If teachers who teach the same course administer common assessments, there shall be no comparisons of classroom assessment results reflected on any teacher’s evaluation.” Furthermore, in a “Memo of Understanding” addendum, the concept is expanded beyond evaluations when it goes on to stipulate, “There shall be no comparison of classroom assessment results reflected on any teacher’s evaluation or provided to any parents.”

Unions contend, as summarized by AFT president Randi Weingarten, that student test-score data should be used primarily for informative and instructional purposes. In other words, we want to specifically avoid using measurable data to set expectations and hold teachers accountable.

I cannot imagine that philosophy being acceptable in any other profession.

Rather than confront this head on, some suggest a more pragmatic approach. They argue that teachers feel threatened by data, and that introduction of data into their evaluations will only strengthen opposition. They maintain that data needs to become integrated into the education psyche in a more natural, evolutionary way.

That argument may have some merit, but on the other hand it’s reasonable to wonder if this is simply too much coddling. How long are we supposed to allow for the evolution?

Teachers need to realize that this is not some sort of “attack” on their profession, but is instead meant to help instructional leaders and teachers alike identify what is working, and what is not. And yes, it should also help to weed out those teachers who are simply not effective.

The current evaluation system is far too subjective and superficial.

- Mike.

As a side note, the LA Times article cites the Data Quality Campaign, which maintains an interesting site here: http://dataqualitycampaign.org. I could not find any state ranking data, but I did read an interesting piece on the benefits of linking teacher and student data, found here.

Obama chides California for not using test scores to evaluate teachers
At stake are billions in federal stimulus funds to be allocated in 'Race to the Top' grants. Schwarzenegger says state law will be amended if necessary to comply.

By Jason Song and Jason Felch

July 25, 2009

President Obama singled out California on Friday for failing to use education data to distinguish poor teachers from good ones, a situation that his administration said must change for the state to receive competitive, federal school dollars.

Obama's comments echo recent criticisms by his Education secretary, Arne Duncan, who warned that states that bar the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers, as California does, are risking those funds. In an announcement Friday at the Education Department in Washington, Obama and Duncan said the "Race to the Top" awards will be allocated to school districts that institute reforms using data-driven analysis, among other things.

"You cannot ignore facts," Obama said. "That is why any state that makes it unlawful to link student progress to teacher evaluations will have to change its ways."

The remarks escalate a disagreement between the Obama administration and California education leaders. While a 2006 law prohibits the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers on a state level, it does not mention local districts, where state officials say pupil data can be used to judge instructors. A handful of districts currently are doing that; L.A. Unified is not.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday he would push to amend state law if necessary.

"We will seek any reforms or changes to the law deemed necessary, including changes to our data system laws, to ensure California is eligible to compete" for federal funds, Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

California's top education officials sent the Obama administration a letter earlier this month saying no changes were needed to state law and that any attempt to modify it could distract from reform efforts, but the administration has not responded.

Obama's speech could also mark the beginning of a protracted fight with teachers unions, which have resisted some of the reforms advocated by the administration, including performance pay and data-driven teacher evaluation.

The state's teachers unions have already voiced their opposition to such a move. When the 2006 law was drafted, teachers unions insisted that it include an amendment saying: "Data in the system may not be used . . . for purposes of pay, promotion, sanction, or personnel evaluation of an individual teacher or group of teachers, or of any other employment related decisions related to individual teachers."

Obama and Duncan made their position clear. "This competition will not be based on politics, ideology, or the preferences of a particular interest group," Obama said. "Instead, it will be based on the simple principle: whether a state is ready to do what works."

"Race to the Top" applicants must show progress in four key areas to compete for the $4.35 billion: adopting rigorous academic standards, recruiting and retaining talented educators, turning around chronically low-performing schools, and building data systems to track student and teacher effectiveness. But Obama also pointed out that teachers should not be judged solely on student test scores.

Seven states have already lifted restrictions on public charter schools to better compete for the funds, the Associated Press reported Friday. Other states, such as Colorado and Massachusetts, are trumpeting their recent progress on issues like merit pay and higher educational standards, which they believe will give them an inside track to secure the federal dollars.

Federal officials have said that California legislators do not have to necessarily revise current law. Instead, the attorney general could certify that the state law is not a barrier to teacher accountability.

But some California education officials questioned whether it would be possible to comply with the administration's demands.

California ranks 41st among states in collecting and using data to evaluate teachers, according to a 2008 survey by the Data Quality Campaign, a nonprofit based in Austin, Texas.

"There is . . . [a] possibility nobody will apply" for the funds, said California Deputy Supt. for Public Instruction Rick Miller, who stressed that state leaders share the Obama administration's goals. "They're asking for fundamental changes in all sorts of areas, and you have to commit to all of it by October. . . . That's a heavy lift."

The draft guidelines for the federal funding released Friday are open for public comment for 30 days. States are required to submit applications by October for the first round of grants.

The money is a portion of the roughly $100-billion educational stimulus package approved by Congress. But much of that money is expected to be used by districts to make up for state budget cuts.

Jason.song@latimes.com

Kristina Sherry in the Washington bureau contributed to this story

Hit the Reset Button on K12 Schools!

2009-07-21T09:34:00.002-05:00

Tom Watkins, Michigan’s former State Superintendent of Schools, has become a prolific opinion writer who offers insightful perspectives on how K-12 education and Michigan’s international business future – particularly in China – have somewhat symbiotic relationships.

He penned the following article:

The Oakland Press: Education needs radical reformation (07/19/09)

The opening paragraph sets the stage:

“Nothing short of radical change in our education system, from cradle to grave, is what will be required for America to regain its international competitiveness. This is a theme I have been championing for years and it was reinforced by a powerful panel presentation at the National Summit recently in Detroit. There is a need to hit the reset button when it comes to reforming our schools. We have yet to get it right.”

He goes on to say:

“Change is often the most talked about and least acted-upon concept in school reform today. Most of our schools believe they have changed. The panel’s assessment: You have not seen anything yet.”

Sadly, his article was buried in the opinion section on page F11, while in the same edition the front-page headline screamed:

The Oakland Press: Oakland students are tops (07/19/09)

The article regurgitates boasts from officials in Oakland County school districts about their test scores on the ACT. Rochester brags that, “We are in the top four or five districts in Oakland County and our per pupil money is right in middle,”

This is exactly the sort of “head in the sand” perspective that is preventing Michigan schools from reforming, and is precisely what Watkins is referring to when he says that schools believe that they have changed.

Consider the “top performance” of Oakland districts. Statistics in the article point out that Rochester saw 76 percent of it’s students pass the math section of the MME (Michigan Merit Exam), which is largely based on the ACT.

While that may be better than others, it doesn’t erase the fact that nearly one out of four children in Rochester could not pass the math minimums. And this is from one of the top districts!

The statistics are even worse if you parse the data and try to look at how many are ready to do college level calculus.

School boards are the root cause of the problem. They tolerate this narrow goal of being the local star, and completely ignore a national or international perspective.

For example, look at Rochester’s so-called “Strategic Plan” , which largely aspires to keep Rochester MEAP/MME scores in the top 95th percentile of Michigan schools.

That would be a worthwhile goal if Rochester students would only be competing with other students from Michigan. But they’re not. They’re competing for college seats – and jobs – with students from around the nation, and around the world.

So, while Rochester is content to say, “… we are giving a big bang for your buck.”, Wayne State Unversity President Dr. Jay Noren more correctly observes, “High school for far too many of our students is not serious — we need high national educational standards, having 50 separate sets of state standards does not make sense in this global, knowledge economy. We need a longer school day and year, increased compensation for effective teachers and a minimum of 14 years of basic education.”

There is nothing wrong with recognizing success. But most schools, like Rochester, spend more time focusing on how to provide positive spin on whatever results are achieved, rather then establishing aggressive and meaningful goals.

While Rochester crows that, “We do well because we’ve got a great teaching staff and good support from parents and we work together as a team.”, Superintendent of Public Instruction Mike Flanagan instead acknowledges “…we still are not where we need to be overall, in getting all students to be college-ready.”

Kids First, or MEA First?

2009-07-08T09:25:00.006-05:00

The Howell school board continues to be the “poster child” for Mark Twain’s quip:

“In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards.”

The most recent attraction at the Howell circus was a surprise meeting in which the board majority fired the superintendent, despite the fact that he seemed to have community support and despite the data that shows he had made a positive impact on student achievement.

The firing could not have been done in a more unprofessional way.

The good news is that it may have awakened the community, and there is now an effort to recall three of the ringleaders.

I thought this was newsworthy because it is a crystal clear example of how much influence the MEA has over school boards. Not only did they publicly influence the board, but, as is often the case, there are other MEA-related conflicts of interest swirling around in the background.

The local paper makes a great case here about the direct MEA influence:

Press & Argus: Howell school board sends message with its capitulation to teachers' union (7/8/09)

The other interesting twist is the how the personal interests of board members are weaved into the story.

Ed Literski, the board president, apparently sees nothing wrong with serving on the board, despite the fact that his wife works for the district.

But consider the conflict of interest – or the appearance of a conflict – as shown in this Livingston Daily Press & Argus article:

Furthermore, in a timeline of events written by Gardella according to Day (Wendy Day… a courageous reform-minded board member -- Mike), the superintendent claimed Literski threatened him April 30 because he "(expletive) with his family."

Literski's wife, Cathy Literski, is a counselor at Highlander Way Middle School. Gardella, according to the timeline, shared with Parker (another board member) information about a grievance Cathy Literski made against the middle school's principal, Jason Feig.

The grievance had to do with Feig denying Cathy Literski a day off from work, according to documents the Daily Press & Argus received under the Freedom of Information Act.

Cathy Literski's request was apparently the seventh request submitted for time off on that day — the first six were approved, according to contract guidelines.

She sought reimbursement of $316 she spent on airline and concert tickets, which she purchased prior to getting approval for time off.

Wednesday, Literski said his wife had nothing to with "the position Mr. Gardella finds himself in."

Hmmm… the request was denied, and suddenly the superintendent finds himself in hot water with the board.

Purely coincidental, I’m sure.

And lastly, it’s unfortunate that the Livingston County Clerk’s office does not post campaign finance records online. I would not be surprised to find MEA PAC contributions to the board majority members. This is a very common practice, as shown on the Education Action Group’s website here: Follow the Money. There is also a detailed article from the Mackinac Center's Education Report.

The MEA influence over this board is so troubling because this whole matter appears to have nothing to do with kids, but is instead about adult issues. The district made AYP for the first time under this superintendent, and test scores appear to be improving. Their budgets appear to be under control. By most objective measures this superintendent seemed to be doing a good job.

His mistake?

There were union related staffing issues, and he annoyed the board president by "(expletive) with his family."

You can follow this drama at Wendy Day’s blog, http://forabetterday.blogspot.com/

I’ve pasted below the full text of the editorial in case the link doesn’t work:

Howell school board sends message with its capitulation to teachers' union

When the Howell Public Schools Board of Education conducted a hastily called special meeting on June 26, the biggest news was the unexpected firing of Superintendent Theodore Gardella, who was completing his first year on the job.

Questions still remain from the decision that Friday. One of the most important: How did such a vote occur when neither his status or his evaluation was on the special meeting agenda? Such action suggests that some board members had privately come to the meeting expecting to fire Gardella, or it suggests that this was an emotional, almost knee-jerk decision.

As important as these questions are, what has been lost in the uproar has been another item on the agenda. That item, in which the board sent a clear message that it will cave to the agenda of the teachers' union, could have much greater impact on the district than did Gardella's firing.

The issue began when the leadership of the Howell Education Association, which represents the district's more than 400 teachers, didn't like the way that staffing was progressing after a meeting on June 23. So the next day, union President Karen Lessnau e-mailed the board's president and vice president to request a special meeting to lodge what it called a formal complaint.

Some of its charges were startling, including an assertion that there had been a "deliberate attempt" by Gardella "to defy" a staffing directive given by the school board.

As it turns out, that assertion may have been overblown, or at least open to alternative interpretations. At the very least, the administration might have had its own version of this accusation of insubordination.

You would think, as employers, the board would have wanted to hear the facts before jumping through the union's hoops. You would be wrong.

There was an appropriate way to handle this, which is to refer the matter back to the administration, which is paid to handle labor issues. If the union doesn't believe the contract it being followed, it can file a grievance. If it wants to address the board, it can take its turn at a regular meeting.

Administrators are trained in labor issues. They know the complexities of the contract and the dynamics of staffing. They also know the tactics that unions use when they want to pressure school board members who, frankly, don't have that expertise.

What you don't do, if you want to run an effective school board, is send the union a message that it is acceptable to do an end-run around your paid administrative team.

But that is exactly what the Howell school board leadership did.

Lessnau's e-mail went out late on that Wednesday afternoon. By 9:30 a.m. the next day, board Vice President Jeannine Pratt had e-mailed the rest of the board with the message that she and President Edwin Literski wanted a special meeting at noon the next day.

The union said "jump," and the board leadership answered "when and how high?"

Perhaps the union complaint was just a pretense used by Pratt and Literski to add momentum to the movement to fire Gardella.

But the capitulation to the union will send a clear message to the next person who is persuaded to become Howell's next superintendent. If he doesn't want to become the third superintendent fired in three years, he will do well to make sure he doesn't cross the union. The board won't have his back.

That's good news for the Howell Education Association, which is maneuvering for bargaining power now that its current labor contract has expired. But it won't be good news for the district's taxpayers.

Academically Waterboarding Middle School Math Students

2009-06-03T06:41:00.008-05:00

I continue to struggle to understand the logic – or lack thereof – of the methods employed by some responsible for our children’s education.

This school year, Rochester schools implemented a revised math curriculum. It was required to do so in order to comply with the State of Michigan’s new, more rigorous high school graduation requirements. Oddly enough, in transitioning Rochester middle school students from the old to a new math curriculum, central office folks decided to “round down” (my words).

They unilaterally determined that the district’s top middle school math students – those who had just completed the “old” Pre-Algebra – should take (retake?) the “new” Pre-Algebra, rather than advancing to Algebra I.

Understandably. parents objected. And in response, the district offered a bold compromise: If parents were really convinced that their kids were ready, students could elect to “opt-in” to Algebra I.

While I would have preferred more thoughtful student guidance, I was willing to accept the compromise because it offered an option to rescue these talented, yet overlooked students from the tedious prospect of needlessly repeating an entire year of math.

But even with this compromise, the hesitation of some to offer an appropropriate academic challenge was stark - even shocking. The district held a math 'information night', which unfortunately turned into a misinformation night. Some officials and some teachers attempted to frighten parents, literally telling them kids would fail if they attempted to move on to Algebra I.

Instead of encouraging children with “Yes, you can!”, they discouraged motivated students by suggesting, “Maybe you shouldn’t”.

Despite the official naysaying, two hundred and seventy one 6th and 7th grade students - with parental support - opted to enroll in the more challenging Algebra I math course. And despite the doomsday predications, recent grading data indicates that the vast majority of the students earned a “B” or better in the new Algebra I.

Unfortunately, the damage is already done. This school year, approximately 25% of eight graders - those considered “advanced math” students under the old system - are taking geometry. Yet only 12% of current year seventh grade “advanced math” students are taking Algebra I - the course which precedes geometry - under the new math curriculum. This means that the number of next year’s eighth graders who take geometry may be reduced by 50 percent.

It’s significant to note that if the district’s original proposal had prevailed - restricting all advanced math students to Pre-Algebra - there would be almost no 8th graders taking geometry next year.

And while it’s encouraging to learn that the daring Algebra 1 students have been so successful, it’s disheartening to hear from those who did not opt in. The school board recently received email from parents whose kids followed the district’s advice to take (retake?) the new Pre-Algebra. These students were bored in math, and their parents are now desperate to get their kids back onto the accelerated math track.

LOOKING AT THIS YEAR

With this unfortunate experience so close at hand, and with tangible data readily available, you’d think the district would revise its approach for this year’s current 6th and 7th grade advanced math students.

Given that ‘those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it’ you’d think the school board would have interest in how math matters were addressed during the year.

Sadly, you’d be wrong.

Once again, the district held its “information night” this spring to help parents better understand their young students’ options. I attended. The district sent one central office administrator, and one middle school principal. Unfortunately, not a single math teacher was in attendance, and no other board members came to observe.

Attending parents expressed serious concerns about the district’s failure to challenge their children in math. They shared their frustration – and even anger – over a “whisper campaign” conducted by some math teachers. Parents overwhelmingly reported that Rochester middle school students are being discouraged from taking Algebra I.

These parents are supportive of their children’s learning aspirations, and dedicated to helping them succeed. They requested study guides, or some other materials to help students prepare for Rochester’s homegrown district “Placement Exam”. In response, the district referred parents to the Michigan Department of Education’s website to look up the 8th grade GLCEs.

Left without official support, parents turned to each other for help. Online resource materials were found. Self-directed study groups were formed. Students were shown that the course content for Pre-Algebra contained much of what they had learned this year.

In a bizarre twist, the district offered last minute suggestions. After months of stalling, and just 10 days before the placement exam, the district posted study suggestions online.

Yet, the posting wasn’t advertised to parents!

The exam was administered last week. Students reported its scope was well beyond the material presented in their study guides, and most felt they were unlikely to “pass”. Similar impressions were reported by students who took the exam last year - the same students, incidentally, who are earning A’s and B’s this year in Algebra I.

From my perspective, this placement exam’s credibility is suspect -- and harmful. It fails to serve as a reliable indicator of success, while simultaneously serving to discourage and block the advancement of students capable of doing Algebra I. At a minimum it's time to find a new test.

By using this test, the district is academically waterboarding these students; intending to pressure them into compliance by simulating failure.

It's also disturbing that some teachers are "lobbying" students... telling them their parents are wrong to encourage them to take Algebra 1. It's quite appropriate for teachers to have an opinion on this matter, and they should share that opinion with parents. They are the education partners, and should be working together. But it's downright unprofessional for teachers to attempt to drive a wedge between parents and their children.

The biggest failure, however, rests with your school board. Last year’s “Math Wars” may have caught them by surprise. But there is no excuse for this year’s oversight. The board watched this discussion unfold, fully armed with the data and experience described above. Furthermore, the administration and board is fully aware of the in-classroom intimidation tactics, and are doing nothing to stop it.

The school board’s failure to maintain vigilance on this important matter is inexcusable.

Through its inaction, this board has earned its distinction as a “Weapon of Math Destruction”.

Outsiders Can Help Public Education

2009-01-13T08:08:00.002-05:00

It’s been a while since I’ve had an opportunity to update this blog. It’s not that there has been a shortage of things to write about. Quite the contrary, actually.

But the economy has had me preoccupied with my other day job… the one that pays the bills.

But I read this yesterday, and could SO relate! It is a quick post.

Washington Post: Educators Resist Even Good Ideas From Outsiders (01/12/09)

Perhaps this tough economy in Michigan will serve as the final straw that will force public educators to rethink their teaching methods, as well as reexamine how they spend our public tax dollars.

This is going to be a difficult time for public education – tougher than ever before. Rather than resisting help, they should really be asking for help.

==> Mike.

I've posted the article below in case the link does not work.

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

Educators Resist Even Good Ideas From Outsiders

By Jay Mathews
Monday, January 12, 2009; B02

With two massive parental revolts nearing victory in Fairfax County, and mothers and fathers elsewhere in the area plotting similar insurgencies, it is time to disclose a great truth about even the best educators I know: As much as they deny it, they really don't like outsiders messing with the way they do their jobs.

I don't like that either. Do you? We know what we are doing. Most other folks don't. We are polite to outsiders, but only to mollify them so we can hang up and get back to work.

The problem is that schools, unlike most institutions, are handling parents' most precious possessions, their children. That aggravates the emotional side of the discussion. It makes it more likely that smart educators are going to write off parents as interfering idiots, even if they actually have a good idea and data to prove it.

I was a school parent for 30 years. The last kid graduated from college in 2007, but a grandchild has just appeared. That sound you hear is California teachers muttering at the thought of me at their door, brimming with helpful suggestions. I know how this works. The school people smile and nod, but nothing happens. Sure, some parent ideas are daft. But important queries are also shrugged off.

I wrote two years ago about public schools' routine refusal to share information about bad teaching with parents of affected children. The schools say the law requires them to stay mum, but some experts disagree. Private schools are even worse. Many parents ask me for information on the Advanced Placement programs at expensive institutions. But those well-regarded schools refuse to release statistics and sniff at parents who seem to think they should be able to compare actual data, as if they were buying a car or health insurance.

I asked some veteran parent activists who have passed my truth tests many times what they have found most annoying about these brushoffs. John Hoven, an advocate for gifted education in Montgomery County, said he joined a parent-staff committee to reach consensus on vital issues but after a year saw it was just a bureaucratic shuffle. The committee chairman, who worked for the county, encouraged trivial agenda items and insisted on formal presentations that left little time for discussion.

Dick Reed, a two-time PTA president in Fairfax, used a commercial metaphor to describe how parents and educators diverge: "People in the school system see the students as their customers, rather than their true customers -- those who pay the bills."

The two Fairfax battles are perfect examples. A parent-led group called SLEEP, for Start Later for Excellence in Education Proposal, wants teens to get more rest. Another parent-led group, Fairgrade, wants the county's unforgiving grading standards aligned with other jurisdictions so their kids would not be handicapped in the competition for college admission and scholarships.

Sandy Evans, a SLEEP co-founder, said: "We kept getting told, 'It can't be done; we've looked at this many times; it's impossible.' We were told the buses couldn't be rescheduled without incurring huge added costs." The parents didn't give up. Five years later, transportation planners say there is a way to get rolling later at no extra cost.

Fairgrade co-founder Megan McLaughlin, a former Georgetown University admissions officer, thought officials would be interested in her view that the county's narrow grading scale and lack of extra grade points for honors classes was hurting Fairfax kids. Instead, she said, her credentials were ignored, an out-of-date study was cited as gospel and a school board member said her complaint was "not a majority concern among parents." Now she has 8,500 parent signatures and a new county report that opens the way for extra grade points, and maybe everything else Fairgrade wants if it keeps pushing. The county says it wants to keep its grading system to fight grade inflation, a losing cause if there ever was one. Only independent national grading systems, like AP, International Baccalaureate, ACT and SAT, keep us honest.

Fairfax Superintendent Jack D. Dale praises SLEEP for "creating and supporting a community consensus on their issue." Fairgrade, in his view, has been more erratic, refusing at the last minute to sign a report it had helped the county write. Dale and other administrators say they cannot get in sync quickly with all these new ideas because they have to protect that ally of all leaders under siege, the Silent Majority, who might not be so keen to change school hours and grades but don't have time to sign petitions or send e-mails.

I think I speak for most parents when I say we would appreciate a more willing suspension of disbelief when we pitch a suggestion and an openness to data before school officials make up their minds. Is that going to happen? I doubt it. And if you don't like this column, well, you're just ignorant.

Witness the anger and bitterness

2008-10-16T12:18:00.006-05:00

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

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

2008-10-10T07:30:00.010-05:00

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.

Image and Appearance… Education’s top priority?

2008-09-10T09:18:00.006-05:00

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.

The 2008 Algebra Revolution

2008-09-09T09:54:00.001-05:00

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!

Parents lobby to raise the education bar and face hurdles

2008-09-05T09:47:00.013-05:00

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!

$13 Billion is not enough?

2008-08-10T09:00:00.004-05:00

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.

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

2008-08-08T10:03:00.004-05:00

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.

Don't Dumb Down Michigan!

2008-08-03T10:56:00.002-05:00

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.

Operational Amateurism

2008-08-02T08:40:00.008-05:00

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.

MEA Misses the Mark in it's Rebuttal

2008-07-28T12:56:00.007-05:00

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

Restructure Michigan Public Education; Scrap the Step System of Pay

2008-07-15T16:49:00.006-05:00

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.

A timely example of Tenure absurdity

2008-07-01T09:47:00.013-05:00

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.

Stop the Hand Wringing

2008-06-16T10:21:00.002-05:00

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.

Tenure damages the Teaching Profession

2008-05-18T09:46:00.004-05:00

The Rochester Education Association is our community’s MEA unit – our local teachers union. Its President wrote an opinion piece that appeared last week in the local paper:

Rochester Eccentric: Earning tenure an important milestone (05/11/08)

She writes, “The sense of celebration was contagious in the school district's Harrison Room when it was announced that 74 teachers had recently earned tenure.”

She’s right. The recognition and celebration of tenure has become an annual event on the agenda of the Rochester Board of Education, and the mood is always upbeat.

But for all of the positive things teachers do, it’s a shame that the school board cannot find better things to publicly celebrate. The countless individual accomplishments made by teachers both in and out of Rochester's classrooms seem far more worthy of a celebration than a change in employment status.

Tenure is certainly an important ritual in the culture of educators, but only because the teacher unions continue to perpetuate the notion that teachers need to be “protected” from some oppressive and ignorant opponent. Like many of the current practices in education, tenure may have made sense at some point in our history, but it now seems outdated and unnecessary today. It’s hard to see how it’s good for the teaching profession, and it seems unhealthy for public education.

Even the tone of the op-ed was one of “pre-emptive defense”. For those outside of “the family”, tenure is indeed a controversial and unpopular law.

A new report from The Education Sector, “Waiting to be Won Over” shows, “Almost seven in 10 teachers (69 percent) say that when they hear a teacher at their school has been awarded tenure, they think that it’s “just a formality—it has very little to do with whether a teacher is good or not.”

Becoming tenured does not translate into increased pay for a teacher. It does not trigger additional responsibility. There is no change whatsoever in the teacher’s professional duties.

The Eccentric op-ed reinforces tenures real purpose: “A rite of passage for all teachers, reaching tenure status means they are no longer "at-will" employees.”

Tenure has absolutely nothing to do with teaching children, or rewarding great teachers. It is nothing more than a unique one-sided law in which the government intervenes and regulates the employment relationship between an employer and an employee.

For many of the countless teachers who have become tenured over the years, tenure has little value. Top-notch professionals earn our respect – and their position in the classroom – by creatively engaging our children, and constantly challenging them. Their efforts, skills – and results – provide security, and they don’t need laws to protect them.

Instead, the tenure law serves as the biggest weapon in the MEA’s arsenal, its sole purpose apparently being to protect those teachers that don’t belong in the classroom.

The article claims this concern is a “misconception”.

Misconceptions about tenure are perpetuated, though, when administrators shirk their responsibilities.

There are ample opportunities for them to utilize the evaluation process as an opportunity to alert teachers to areas in their performance needing attention.

Tenure protections are in no way meant to override or replace effective supervision. For those who stumble along the way, a healthy and respectful partnership between the Education Association and administration can get an underperformer back on track.

Technically, there is a process for addressing those who are gross “underperformers”. But it is a painful and cumbersome process that attempts to bury administrators in paperwork, eliminate the use of objective and meaningful test data, and drag out the process for an absurdly long time. The pain an administrator must bear to remove an “underperforming” teacher is considerable, so it’s logical that they will only go there in the most extreme cases.

Even teachers agree. From the Education Sector report:

According to teachers, not only do the system’s incentives lock in teachers who’d rather leave; its rules make it hard to push colleagues out when they really should not be teaching. Well over half of the teachers surveyed (55 percent) say that in their district it is very difficult and time-consuming to remove clearly ineffective teachers who shouldn’t be in the classroom but who are past their probationary period. Only 13 percent say this is not the case. And almost half of teachers (46 percent) say they know a teacher in their own building who is past the probationary period but who is clearly ineffective and shouldn’t be in the classroom.”

It is these bad apples – protected by tenure and the MEA – that spoil the reputation of the teaching profession as a whole. Eliminating tenure privileges, and enlisting the help of the MEA to help police it’s ranks, would be a far more effective way to help teachers, students, and public education.

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

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

May 11, 2008

Earning tenure an important milestone

The sense of celebration was contagious in the school district's Harrison Room when it was announced that 74 teachers had recently earned tenure. A rite of passage for all teachers, reaching tenure status means they are no longer "at-will" employees.

Tenure was awarded in 1937 and amended in 1993 by the Michigan Legislature.

The Tenure Act provides for probationary periods, regulates discharges or demotions, provides for resignations and leaves of absence, created a tenure commission and established the concept of the "continuing tenure of office of certificated teachers in public educational institutions."

It's hard to imagine this idea as being controversial when you see the fresh faces of these eager professionals. It's not unusual either to hear stories told with affection from many satisfied students and their families about their interactions with these relatively new staff members.

If you want your teachers to make the necessary commitment to their students, they naturally need a sense of security which is an important by-product of gaining tenure. Once tenure is earned it is no simple "cake walk" from here to retirement, though. Pressure to perform comes from all corners: MEAP, NCLB, MMC, NCA, SIP, MLPP, AP, PLC and under the watchful eye of the public.

The teachers strive to continually incorporate best practice and build positive relationships with students and parents. The success of our students is at the core of our mission and as fellow Education Association members we commit to guiding each other in continued quality performance.

Misconceptions about tenure are perpetuated, though, when administrators shirk their responsibilities.

There are ample opportunities for them to utilize the evaluation process as an opportunity to alert teachers to areas in their performance needing attention.

Tenure protections are in no way meant to override or replace effective supervision. For those who stumble along the way, a healthy and respectful partnership between the Education Association and administration can get an underperformer back on track.

Gaining tenure has afforded these beginning employees some contractual protections besides those afforded them through the operation of law. For example, if the unfortunate circumstances of layoff should occur, temporary and probationary teachers will be the ones to be put on notice first.

The newly minted tenure teachers are just completing four years of probation (two years for anyone who previously earned tenure in another Michigan school district). Their performance during that time has been deemed satisfactory under the scrutiny of their building principal or departmental supervisors. In addition, each teacher has also completed 210 hours of professional development, 90 of which had to be completed on their own time.

Probationary teachers are required also to work with an assigned mentor and to develop goals for their performance in consultation with their supervisors.

Please join us in congratulating the newly tenured teachers in Rochester. We invite you to watch them, too, as their contributions over the coming years strengthen the fabric of our school community.

Cathy Perini Korreck is president of the Rochester Education Association.

Can the benefits of All-Day K be proven?

2008-04-27T20:34:00.007-05:00

A reader asked me to reference the studies that explain "WHY" all-day kindergarten is better. The "WHY" is shown in those studies that advocate for it. More time on task allows for deeper understanding. More practice time leads to better mastery. More time allows more ground to be covered.

In short, some studies suggest students learn more, and learn it faster.

I think what he was really looking for was the study that proved without a doubt that all-day kindergarten is best. Such a study does not exist. Some will point to positive results, but none of the studies will declare it "best" in such absolute terms.

The reader suggests that all-day kindergarten is nothing more than "cheap childcare for working parents." Perhaps in his district -- and in some other districts for that matter -- it might be.

But a failure to develop a robust all-day kindergarten curriculum in some districts does not mean that the all-day kindergarten lacks merit. Not all districts are irresponsible or ineffective.

Furthermore, I've said repeatedly that all-day kindergarten needs to be part of an overhaul of the subsequent elementary curriculum so that the benefits of all-day kindergarten are not short-lived.

This is a complex issue, and for every study that recommends all-day kindergarten, there is likely to be on that says it doesn’t matter. But this lack of concensus is of little significance, given that most topics in education have similar disagreements.

There is no way that I -- or anyone -- can “prove” to this reader that in every case all-day kindergarten is the best choice.

I have pasted below some links and commentary I pulled together for someone late last year.

I stand by my opinion that all-day kindergarten would be an improvement to our education system.

==> Mike.

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

This was discussed last year in Michigan.
http://www.michiganvotes.org/2006-SB-1306

The AFT liked the Senate bill:
http://aftmichigan.org/files/kindergarten.pdf

--------------------------------------------------
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/244785/

Nationwide, the percentage of full-day programs has grown from about 25 percent in 1984 to 60 percent in 2001, and likely more by now. The trend, if anything, is accelerating. Half-day kindergarten is so unpopular in northern New Jersey that many families hold their kids out of the public schools or send them to private full-day kindergarten programs. A glance at news reports shows that in recent weeks pressure has mounted for such programs in Michigan, North Dakota, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Connecticut, Washington, Nebraska and Kansas.

Longer classes include more instruction, which is meant to give kids a boost in reading, math and other academic skills. Advocates haul out various studies indicating that all-day kindergarten helps children, especially those from lower-income families, learn more and faster.

We're skeptical. Research going back seven decades suggests that any advantage of early education disappears later on. Earlier this year, for example, the Goldwater Institute in Arizona found that any boost kids received from preschool and kindergarten programs had vanished by the fifth grade.

"This report demonstrates that all-day kindergarten is not an education reform strategy that policymakers can hang their hats on," said Darcy Olsen, president of the institute. "All-day 'k' delivers short-term benefits at best."

[AGAIN, I BELIEVE THIS “SHORT TERM” ARGUMENT IGNORES THE FACT THAT SCHOOLS DON’T ADJUST THEIR CURRICULUM IN GRADES 1-5. – mjr]
--------------------------------------------------------

There is apparently some paper referenced here that would be worth tracking down:

http://www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/0103poll-education03.html

He points to a 2004 paper that McMaster University Assistant Professor Philip DeCicca wrote while at the University of Michigan. DeCicca analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Education and found that although all-day kindergarten pupils see education gains, those strides may be temporary, especially for minority children. After a few years, some minority children who attend all-day kindergarten do worse than their half-day counterparts, DeCicca's paper suggests.

Napolitano's office argues that the vast majority of data support the positive benefits of full-day kindergarten, though all-day kindergarten isn't a magic bullet, acknowledged Becky Hill, the governor's education adviser.

"There will never be one thing that will make all children better learners," she said. "It's intended to be one piece of a better system."

[MS. HILL HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD WITH THE “JUST ONE PIECE” POINT – mjr]

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

Here's something from NCES:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006031

March, 2006
"Spending more time on subject and working within a full-day kindergarten structure were found to be associated with relatively large gains in achievement."

From ERIC:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal_nfpb=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=Full+Day+Kindergarten&searchtype=keyword&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=kw&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&objectId=0900019b8015f0d5&accno=EJ749462&_nfls=false

Using longitudinal data, I estimate the impact of full-day kindergarten on standardized test scores in mathematics and reading, as children progress from kindergarten to first grade. I find that full-day kindergarten has sizeable impacts on academic achievement, but the estimated gains are short-lived, particularly for minority children. Given the additional expense of full-day kindergarten, information regarding the size and duration of gains should be of great interest to policy makers.

[AGAIN, THE "SHORT-LIVED GAINS" COULD EASILY BE EXPLAINED BY A LACK OF ADJUSTMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS -- mjr]

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

A tough "anti" full day K article from The Mackinac Center:

http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.aspx?ID=8835

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

Some Michigan Full Day Kindergarten Programs:

http://www.aaps.k12.mi.us/aaps.forparents/ins.k_options/full_day_kindergarten
http://www.bcreek.k12.mi.us/
http://www.albion.edu/pleiad/Fall_2007/issue07/community/community1.asp

http://www.farmington.k12.mi.us/curriculum/fulldayk.php

Conclusions and Recommendations
The All Day Kindergarten Program at William Grace Elementary School has substantially increased tests scores, met the academic and social needs of students, has the overwhelming support of parents, and has the potential to generate additional revenue for the district by attracting additional students to the district. Therefore, it is recommended the program be continued at William Grace. If the district has sufficient resources, the program should be expanded to other schools, particularly those with the greatest needs based on the research that was reviewed.

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

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0309/p01s03-ussc.html?s=u

from the March 09, 2005 edition
Across the country many districts are fighting to retain and boost full-day programs even as budgets grow tighter. Last year, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation's second-largest, voted to expand full-day kindergarten programs. Maryland school systems are mandated to have full-day kindergarten by the 2007-2008 school year. And in Oklahoma, Gov. Brad Henry has pushed an initiative to fund $114 million for a school-improvement initiative that includes all-day kindergarten.

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

http://www.hometownsource.com/2005/November/1nathan.html

It appears the website here has some missing text, but here is what is says: The new study will be published in February and was discussed on the front page of the non-partisan, well-respected Education Week, October 19. Researchers used data from a nationally representative sample of about 8,000 students.
The authors are from the University of Michigan, University of Oregon in Eugene, and Chicagoís Erikson Institute.

[THIS LINK DOESN'T SAY MUCH, BUT IT IS A PLACEHOLDER TO REMIND ME -- OR SOMEONE! -- TO LOOKUP THE EDUCATION WEEK ARTICLE -- mjr]

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

A bit dated, but contains some data:
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/poptopics/fullday.html

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

Negative parent reaction:
http://www.ibabuzz.com/education/2007/07/23/full-day-kindergarten-should-it-be-mandatory-in-oakland/

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

A bit dated, but still relevent from the National Association of Elementary School Principals
http://www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?contentId=193
There is an impressive amount of research supporting full-day kindergarten’s benefit to students academically, socially, and emotionally. Principals agree.

All Day K: 12 Down, 16 To Go!

2008-04-27T08:52:00.006-05:00

House Bill 4662 is a step in the right direction.

This was pointed out a few weeks ago in the following editorial:

Oakland Press: All-day kindergarten promises benefits to kids (04/09/08)

The bill proposes to “require full-day kindergarten beginning with the 2011-2012 school year”. Unfortunately it adds a condition; it is only required “for schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress under the federal No Child Left Behind law for two consecutive years.”

The legislature should instead require all-day kindergarten for all schools.

In its analysis of the legislation, MichiganVotes.com cites MDE data showing that one-third of Michigan schools already offer full-day kindergarten, and another third offer options for all day programs.

Not all parents like it, as shown in a recent Oakland Press article (found here). But some boards are offering half-day kindergarten as an option for those parents who feel their child is not ready for an all day program.

Most studies I’ve seen seem to show that children who have gone through a good all-day kindergarten enter first grade better prepared than those who have only had a half-day. No great surprise there. Some of those studies conclude that this advantage seems to wear off by fifth grade. There is no great surprise there either, given that most moves to all-day kindergarten are myopically focused on kindergarten, and do not include changes to the first grade curriculum to allow for these better prepared children. And, if better prepared kindergarteners need a more challenging first grade curriculum, then those better prepared first graders will need a more challenging second grade curriculum, and so on.

The MichiganVotes.com analysis also articulately cites an argument I’ve made for years, “Proponents argue House Bill 4662 is pre-funded, and not an unfunded policy mandate. Since the state currently pays districts a full foundation allowance for each kindergarten student attending a half-day program, school district officials are obligated to offer a full-day of education. If school district officials are currently using their full per pupil foundation allowance to subsidize other areas of the school operation, they will need to re-prioritize their budgets, and direct the state aid for full-time kindergarten to the program for which it is intended.”

There have been a few more announcements recently in Oakland County, including one today about Walled Lake:

Oakland Press: District offers parents option of all-day kindergarten (04/26/08)

This now means that 12 of the 28 districts in Oakland County offer free all day Kindergarten:

Berkley
Clawson
Farmington
Ferndale
Holly
Novi
Oak Park
Pontiac
Royal Oak
Southfield
Walled Lake
Waterford

The rest charge parents for various “extended” options. This is downright wrong, given that the school is already receiving taxpayer dollars from the state.

Perhaps “Rubber Stamping” should be a crime too!

2008-03-09T09:19:00.004-05:00

When reading stories like I’ve included below, the first thought that occurs to many might be, “How does this kind of stuff happen?” Apparently that doesn't occur to reporters, though, because the stories spotlight the criminals but often fail to consider who else might be responsible – not in a criminal way – but in a negligent way.

Consider this story regarding the Chippewa Valley School District:

Macomb Daily: 3 ½ years for embezzler (03/01/08)

The executive director of support services embezzled over $2.3 million dollars from the district by inflating the cost of the materials he was responsible for purchasing.

According to the article, he did this at least 40 times, based on the 40 phony invoices found in his house. That would average $57,500 per invoice, which is a spending level that would – or should – include some approval/oversight at the school board level.

I’d bet that there were 40 instances were there was a unanimous round of seven AYE votes approving those fraudulent purchases, or the invoices. There’s a good chance that not one single question was asked before each of the 40 approvals.

School boards will typically refrain from asking probing questions about bids. They're trained to view that as “micromanaging”, which is frowned upon. Or, they're told that questioning a bid suggests a lack of trust in the administration. Their ivory tower approach tends to leave these “pesky details” to the superintendent and the administrative team, and purports to then hold them accountable.

That’s appropriate to a point, but the flaw in that approach is that it ignores or discourages the need – actually the responsibility – to engage in reasonable oversight.

Contrary to the widely held belief that it’s “rude” to question bids, it’s instead prudent to ask questions, as this Chippewa Valley example so clearly illustrates. Sadly, there are very few questions asked at school board meetings.

What's more shocking – yet typical of boards – is that after being duped out of $2.3 million, we're left to wonder whether the Chippewa board learned it’s lesson. One local parent, sharing her efforts to ask what appear to be reasonable questions about other unusual purchases and expenses, maintains that the board and administration are stonewalling.

If the board did indeed rubber-stamp 40 fraudulent purchases, then shouldn’t they be held accountable for a dereliction of duty? And for all the tough rhetoric on “holding the superintendent accountable”, local residents report no evidence that would suggest anyone has been held accountable for anything.

The article concludes with:

Superintendent Mark Deldin addressed the court, urging the maximum punishment be imposed. He said Tague's thievery had "significantly depleted" financial resources for education and eroded public trust.

It sounds to me like Tague was not the only one responsible for eroded public trust. And restoring that trust is going to take more than moving proclamations to a judge. A more proper place to start is the school boardroom.

Deldin goes on to say, "The essence of his acts was to steal money from our children and from our community.”

What about those who were supposed to be there to protect the interests of the children and the community from that very risk? Perhaps Tague is the only criminal, but should he be the only one held accountable?

Finally, I wonder whether Tague’s sentence could go further. Wouldn't it be nice to have sentences for crimes like this include a "recovery" component? Maybe he should instead be sentenced to uncover sloppy financial practices in public schools throughout the state and given a sentence that is benchmarked to the dollars he recovers.

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

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

PUBLISHED: Saturday, March 1, 2008
3 1/2 years for embezzler

Ex-purchaser for Chippewa Valley sent to prison, ordered to pay back $2.3 million for rigging bids

By Mitch Hotts
Macomb Daily Staff Writer

When James Tague was allowed to speak before he was sentenced in U.S. District Court Friday morning for bilking a Macomb County school district out of more than $2 million, he apologized to his family, friends and the court.

But he never extended those apologies to Chippewa Valley Schools, the Clinton Township-based district that paid him $109,000 a year to act as executive director of support services to purchase furniture and equipment.

Instead, according to federal prosecutors, he purchased the materials, boosted the price by as much as 300 percent and sold it Chippewa Valley, pocketing the profits.

"I should have known better," Tague said at his sentencing hearing.

U.S. District Judge Paul D. Borman ordered Tague to serve 42 months in a federal prison, pay $2.3 million in restitution to the school district along with a $75,000 fine and serve three years of supervised release once he gets out of prison.

The judge's sentence fell in the middle of a 37- to 46-month guideline that was part of a plea-bargain agreement reached between Tague and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Detroit.

"I don't think he'll ever think about doing it (stealing from schools) again," Borman said.

Tague, 62, of Independence Township in northern Oakland County, was charged by federal prosecutors with defrauding a federally funded program.

While employed as the purchasing agent for the 15,400-student district, he was responsible for obtaining the lowest qualified bidder for supplies, furniture and equipment.

Instead, he set up his own companies to rig the bids and charged the district markup costs that amounted to $2.3 million. In some cases, he also charged for delivery.

Defense attorney Neil Rockind disclosed a sentencing memorandum he wrote to the court had been sealed because it contained personal information about Tague, including Tague's admission that he has a problem with alcohol. The judge unsealed the document, but a copy was not immediately available.

"There can be good people with good hearts and minds with good intentions and they go wayward," Rockind said. "That's exactly what happened here."

Under the plea bargain, Tague was ordered to repay the $2.3 million and seek substance abuse counseling. He could have faced up to 10 years behind bars and a $250,000 fine if he did not agree to the plea bargain.

Tague agreed to surrender properties he owned including a condominium in Bonita Springs and an apartment in Las Vegas. In court on Friday, he turned over $100,000 from a home equity loan from a property in Fort Myers Beach, Fla.

Arlyce Tague, his wife, also agreed to surrender her interest in the property.

School officials said Tague was fired in 2006 after they received an anonymous tip about the rigged bids and they contacted the FBI. Federal agents conducted an investigation and later served a search warrant at some of Tague's Oakland County businesses where they seized 40 invoices for goods shipped to Chippewa Valley.

Agents discovered markups ranging between 12 and 300 percent with the average increase being about 46 percent, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Bullatto.

"He doesn't have the right to take even one dime from this school district. Every dollar should be restored," Bullatto said.

Chippewa Valley Superintendent Mark Deldin addressed the court, urging the maximum punishment be imposed. He said Tague's thievery had "significantly depleted" financial resources for education and eroded public trust.

"The essence of his acts was to steal money from our children and from our community," Deldin said.

Tague, who left with his family and a handful of supporters, was allowed to remain free on personal bond. He is expected to report to a federal prison within 90 days.

Visit RightMichigan.com

2008-03-09T09:12:00.003-05:00

I’ve added a new link under “Places to see” – http://www.rightmichigan.com/

Blogger Nick DeLeeuw does a great job of monitoring blog sites around the state and compiling a daily view of what’s being discussed in Michigan’s blogosphere.

That, combined with some entertaining and pithy comments makes it a great place to start your day. (Be sure to watch a few of the "Juli on the Web" video posts... it's encouraging to see young people who are willing to take a stand -- a thoughtful stand -- on issues!)

In the interest of full disclosure, let me acknowledge in advance that – as the name suggests – it’s got a conservative slant. But by and large he finds blog posts that seem fair and accurate. I find many of the articles to be interesting and thought provoking, and figure I get plenty of the opposite slant by reading some of the local papers!

==> Mike.

I dissagree with your oppion. If students dont have there electives we will have no reason to come to school.

2008-02-25T10:12:00.013-05:00

Well here’s an interesting trio of articles to place side by side:

Detroit News: Michigan schools show progress (02/21/08)

Oakland Press: Michigan needs to do better than a C+ (02/18/08)

KOAT: Errors Plague Letters From APS Students (02/20/08)

The Detroit News piece calls attention to the fact that Michigan has made progress on tightening K-12 standards. It’s based on a report called “Closing the Expectations Gap” (found by clicking here) from Achieve, Inc -- “a nonprofit established by the nation's governors”. I seem to recall that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been a financial – and philosophical – supporter of the effort.

The success is attributed to the fact that Michigan, “began requiring that all juniors take the ACT-based Michigan Merit Exam in 2007, and implemented new graduation requirements this year”

I think this is a welcome piece of news, and is a great start.

But knowledgeable education activist Marcie Lipsitt notes in her Oakland Press piece that, “The C+ earned by Michigan in Education Week’s 2008 Quality Counts report is devastating, and further proof of the inferior education provided to our 1.8 million students.”. She also points out that, “Michigan earned a D+ in teacher preparation and D in student achievement.”

It ties in nicely to the Detroit News piece when Marcie notes, “An A- earned in standards artificially raised the state’s average grade to that whopping C+. ”

In other words, the Detroit News headline was a bit misleading. It’s not “Michigan Schools” that are showing progress, it’s the “Michigan Department of Education” that is showing progress. And as Marcie notes, they need to keep pressing.

But even if they keep pressing, they are likely to face resistance at the local level. In addition to the typical complaints about funding, schools were quite vocal in their resistance to the new graduation requirements. In fact, there are a few articles on this blog which addressed that opposition. One huge concern was that the requirement for more mandatory academic classes was going to get in the way of electives. I viewed those as well intentioned, but misguided concerns.

It was that memory that surfaced when I read the KOAT article from Alburquerque. It seems that there is some talk in New Mexico that students who do poorly on state tests should be forced to take remedial classes rather than electives.

I’ve posted it because it’s really an intriguing idea that merits discussion.

And, it includes some painfully evident examples of why this makes sense.

My blog headline was taken from student letters written in opposition to the plan.

I’ve pasted all three articles below in case the links don’t work.

==> Mike.

KOAT.com

Errors Plague Letters From APS Students

POSTED: 7:01 pm MST February 20, 2008
UPDATED: 10:42 am MST February 21, 2008

The controversy over electives in the Albuquerque Public Schools curriculum heats up.

Should students who do poorly on state tests be forced to take remedial classes and not allowed to take electives?

Wednesday, students themselves responded in the Albuquerque Journal newspaper -- but may not have proved the point they intended.

The Journal said the letters are from students at Jefferson Middle School.

Of eight letters published, seven of them are full of grammar and spelling mistakes:

"I know I wont wont my eletive tooken away. wht about the sped kibs? Hae you thought about that!"

The students are responding to the possibility of APS taking electives away from students who fail state tests for math and reading.

Another student writes, "I dissagree with your oppion. If students dont have there electives we will have no reason to come to school. And if kids start not coming to school it will be your fault."

Melissa Armijo has a child at Jefferson. She agrees with the statement, but said the mistakes in the letter are scary.

I think that they should have a medium of being able to still give a child an elective and also having that child learn how to read and write correctly,"Armijo said.

The Albuquerque Journal is a partner with KOAT.

The Journal said the letters that were published were representative of the letters they received.

Many of the letters came from an e-mail sent by their teacher and then a few from the students themselves.

The Journal said they confirmed every letter that ran in the paper but chose not to run the students' names.

There were several letters the Journal did not run that had even more serious grammatical and spelling errors.

Jefferson students did well on last year's math and reading tests but the school did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP.

More than half the APS high school students tested last year did not pass the math or reading sections of the standard tests.

APS said those students may soon have to replace electives with remedial classes in those subjects.

The district is waiting for guidelines from the state before implementing any new policy.

______________________________________________

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Michigan schools show progress

Karen Bouffard / The Detroit News

Michigan has made more progress on tightening its K-12 academic standards than most states, according to a national study released Wednesday by a Washington, D.C.-based education reform group.

The study by Achieve, Inc., a nonprofit established by the nation's governors, found there is a large gap nationwide between what schools expect students to learn by the time they graduate and the needs of colleges and the work force.

"This report, thanks to the governor, the State Board of Education and legislative leadership, now shows Michigan is a leader in preparing students for college and work," said State Schools Superintendent Mike Flanagan.

The study, now in its third year, looked at five key areas: academic standards; graduation requirements; student assessments; data collection; and accountability. Michigan, which began requiring that all juniors take the ACT-based Michigan Merit Exam in 2007, and implemented new graduation requirements this year -- met benchmarks in three of the five areas.

Only Louisiana, New York and Texas had more policies in place than Michigan, with four. No state had all five policies in place.

Dearborn schools Superintendent John Artis said he supports the reforms, but Michigan needs to do more. He's not yet certain if the policies will bear fruit in students' performance.

"It's really nice to rank all of those things, but it would be a whole lot better if they were funded," Artis said, echoing a common compliant by Michigan school officials. "We've seen no increases in funding, and that continues to be one of the major problems we face.

"I'm generally supportive of the changes, but if you don't fund that, we are placed in a bind that's almost impossible for us to escape from. You've got to have reading coaches at the high school level, and other support for students. Without funding, how do you make that happen?"

Michigan met the study's benchmark for aligning high school standards with college and workplace expectations, in part by implementing grade level expectations that are standard for all students in the state. Nineteen states met the benchmark. Michigan is among 19 states that have toughened their graduation requirements, and just nine that require tests -- like the Michigan Merit Exam taken by all juniors -- to assess how much they learn by the time they graduate.

The state failed to meet the study's benchmark for a common data collection system able to track students from the time they enter preschool through the age of 20. Eight states already have such a system, which is under development in Michigan.

State Department of Education spokeswoman Jan Ellis said Michigan this year began assigning identity codes to students, which will eventually be used to track them as they move through the educational system and on into college.

"It's going to require both the technical and financial resources and the cooperations and agreement of the higher education institutions to put something like that in place," Ellis said. "It's still very much on the drawing board."

Michigan also failed to establish an accountability system that promotes college and career readiness. Only Louisiana, New York, North Carolina and Texas met that benchmark, which would require tracking not only the graduation rate, but how many graduates require remedial classes upon entering college.

You can reach Karen Bouffard at (734) 462-2206 or kbouffard@detnews.com

______________________________________________

Michigan needs to do better than a C+

The Rev. Martin Luther King once said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Public education and Michigan children must matter. Gov. Granholm, the Legislature, policy makers and people of Michigan must make public education a top priority for 2008.

It’s decades overdue. Michiganians must take off their rose-colored public education glasses. The C+ earned by Michigan in Education Week’s 2008 Quality Counts report is devastating, and further proof of the inferior education provided to our 1.8 million students.

The C+ under the best of circumstances is not a grade worthy of accolades, but for Jan Ellis (MDE spokesperson) to reportedly say it “shows the state is doing well in areas that have been of primary focus” is outrageous.

Since when is student achievement, preparing our students for post-secondary education and the global economy and workforce not the top priority?

Michigan earned a D+ in teacher preparation and D in student achievement.

We are not teaching our teachers to teach or our students to learn.

An A- earned in standards artificially raised the state’s average grade to that whopping C+.

The Michigan Department of Education apparently has accountability standards for the children; they simply don’t educate them to compete with students across the U.S. and countries around the world.

Michigan is 49th in high school graduation rates. The only state worse is Mississippi.

And Michigan is 48th and below the national average for students that graduate with a regular diploma and the steady (or lack of) employment of our adults working full time.

Detroit has the lowest graduation rate of the nation’s 50 largest school districts.

And is among the most segregated in the country.

Michigan children now rank among the nation’s worst for their stagnant performance and lack of academic improvement.

Does anyone else see a correlation between too few attending Kindergarten compared with too few graduating high schools with diplomas and holding steady jobs?

Abuse and neglect charges could be filed against several decades of governors, legislators and policy makers for robbing millions of Michigan children of their right to an education that leads to maximally productive taxpaying adulthoods.

Many of those that have achieved grade level proficiency and gone on to college/universities, and the workforce have and will continue to flee our state for those states that offer far greater job opportunities, stability and quality of life.

Every time Michigan loses a child, we lose a future taxpayer and source of revenue and economy.

For more than 50 years, the people of Michigan have not valued public education.

Still, as Michiganians like to do, we can wear our rose-colored glasses and stand proud as the 18th best of the worst in America.

As a nation, we earned a C — which is mediocre and worse than 29 other countries. While Massachusetts is the best the U.S. has to offer, even their kids better stay away from Finland, Hong Kong and Canada.

Michigan is in a one-state depression and must redefine itself and its economy.

Our children as our future thinkers, innovators, creators, workers and leaders are critical to the recreation of a state that is drowning in its own Great Lakes.

Gov. Granholm, educate Michigan children and let them be your legacy and our state’s lifeboat and savior.

Marcie Lipsitt of Franklin is a member of the Michigan Alliance for Special Education

Financially reward those teachers who truly make a difference!

2008-02-20T09:47:00.005-05:00

TIME to take another look at merit pay.

TIME Magazine: How to Make Great Teachers (02/13/08)

The headline is a bit provocative. It’s an article about incentive pay based on results. It should not suggest that money alone would make great teachers. We already have some great teachers, who do what they do because they love their jobs, and are true professionals.

I’m in favor of pursing “pay for performance” so that schools can provide well-deserved rewards to those teachers who truly make a difference.

Oddly enough, I believe finding a funding source for a “pay for performance” plan would be easier than actually developing the plan itself. Schools oftentimes seem too fixated on process, and trying to develop “the perfect plan.” Perfection does not exist, and somebody is always going to think it’s unfair.

In the private sector, managers do their best to identify the needs of the company, and design a plan that will reward the employees depending on their level of success. The plans change as needs, goals, and resources change.

I want to emphasize this isn't some "silver bullet"... it's got to be part of some bigger strategy that includes more teacher mentoring, researched-based teaching strategies, more data-driven practices.

I thought the conclusion to this article was great:

“As U.S. school districts embark on hundreds of separate experiments involving merit pay, some lessons seem clear. If the country wants to pay teachers like professionals—according to their performance, rather than like factory workers logging time on the job—it has to provide them with other professional opportunities, like the chance to grow in the job, learn from the best of their peers, show leadership and have a voice in decision-making, including how their work is judged. Making such changes would require a serious investment by school districts and their taxpayers. But it would reinvigorate a noble profession.”

I’ve posted the whole article below in case the link doesn’t work. However, I’d suggest that you follow the actual TIME link above because there are some other good articles there too.

==> Mike.

Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008
How to Make Great Teachers
By Claudia Wallis

We never forget our best teachers—those who imbued us with a deeper understanding or an enduring passion, the ones we come back to visit years after graduating, the educators who opened doors and altered the course of our lives. I was lucky enough to encounter two such teachers my senior year in a public high school in Connecticut. Dr. Cappel told us from the outset that his goal was not to prepare us for the AP biology exam; it was to teach us how to think like scientists, which he proceeded to do with a quiet passion, mainly in the laboratory. Mrs. Hastings, my stern, Radcliffe-trained English teacher, was as devoted to her subject as the gentle Doc Cappel was to his: a tough taskmaster on the art of writing essays and an avid guide to the pleasures of James Joyce. Looking back, I'd have to credit this inspirational pair for carving the path that led me to a career writing about science.

It would be wonderful if we knew more about teachers such as these and how to multiply their number. How do they come by their craft? What qualities and capacities do they possess? Can these abilities be measured? Can they be taught? Perhaps above all: How should excellent teaching be rewarded so that the best teachers—the most competent, caring and compelling—remain in a profession known for low pay, low status and soul-crushing bureaucracy?

Such questions have become critical to the future of public education in the U.S. Even as politicians push to hold schools and their faculty members accountable as never before for student learning, the nation faces a shortage of teaching talent. About 3.2 million people teach in U.S. public schools, but, according to projections by economist William Hussar at the National Center for Education Statistics, the nation will need to recruit an additional 2.8 million over the next eight years owing to baby-boomer retirement, growing student enrollment and staff turnover—which is especially rapid among new teachers. Finding and keeping high-quality teachers are key to America's competitiveness as a nation. Recent test results show that U.S. 10th-graders ranked just 17th in science among peers from 30 nations, while in math they placed in the bottom five. Research suggests that a good teacher is the single most important factor in boosting achievement, more important than class size, the dollars spent per student or the quality of textbooks and materials.

Across the country, hundreds of school districts are experimenting with new ways to attract, reward and keep good teachers. Many of these efforts borrow ideas from business. They include signing bonuses for hard-to-fill jobs like teaching high school chemistry, housing allowances ($15,000 in New York City) and what might be called combat pay for teachers who commit to working in the most distressed schools. But the idea gaining the most momentum—and controversy—is merit pay, which attempts to measure the quality of teachers' work and pay teachers accordingly.

Traditionally, public-school salaries are based on years spent on the job and college credits earned, a system favored by unions because it treats all teachers equally. Of course, everyone knows that not all teachers are equal. Just witness how parents lobby to get their kids into the best classrooms. And yet there is no universally accepted way to measure competence, much less the ineffable magnetism of a truly brilliant educator. In its absence, policymakers have focused on that current measure of all things educational: student test scores. In districts across the country, administrators are devising systems that track student scores back to the teachers who taught them in an attempt to apportion credit and blame and, in some cases, target help to teachers who need it. Offering bonuses to teachers who raise student achievement, the theory goes, will improve the overall quality of instruction, retain those who get the job done and attract more highly qualified candidates to the profession—all while lifting those all-important test scores.

Such efforts have been encouraged by the Bush Administration, which in 2006 started a program that awards $99 million a year in grants to districts that link teacher compensation to raising student test scores. Merit pay has also become part of the debate in Congress over how to improve the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), triggering an outcry from teachers' unions, which oppose federal intrusion into how teachers get paid and evaluated. The subject is a touchy one for the Democrats, who count on support from the powerful teachers' unions. Last summer, Barack Obama endorsed merit pay at a meeting of the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers' union, so long as the measure of merit is "developed with teachers, not imposed on them and not based on some arbitrary test score." Hillary Clinton says she does not support merit pay for individual teachers but does advocate performance-based pay on a schoolwide basis.

It's hard to argue against the notion of rewarding the best teachers for doing a good job. But merit pay has a long, checkered history in the U.S., and new programs to pay teachers according to test scores have already backfired in Florida and Houston. What holds more promise is broader efforts to transform the profession by combining merit pay with more opportunities for professional training and support, thoughtful assessments of how teachers do their jobs and new career paths for top teachers. Here's a look at what's really needed to improve teaching in the U.S.—and what just won't work.

The Leaky Bucket
There's no magic formula for what makes a good teacher, but there is general agreement on some of the prerequisites. One is an unshakable belief in children's capacity to learn. "Anyone without this has no business in the classroom," says Margaret Gayle, an expert on gifted education at Duke University, who has trained thousands of teachers in North Carolina. Another requirement, especially in the upper grades, is a deep knowledge of one's subject. According to research on teacher efficacy by statistician William Sanders, the higher the grade, the more closely student achievement correlates to a teacher's expertise in her field. Nationally, that's a problem. Nearly 30% of middle- and high school classes in math, English, science and social studies are taught by teachers who didn't major in a subject closely related to the one they are teaching, according to Richard Ingersoll, professor of education and society at the University of Pennsylvania. In the physical sciences, the figure is 68%. In high-achieving countries like Japan and South Korea, he says, "you have far less of this misassignment going on."

Other essential skills require on-the-job practice. It takes at least two years to master the basics of classroom management and six to seven years to become a fully proficient teacher. Unfortunately, a large percentage of public-school teachers give up before they get there. Between a quarter and a third of new teachers quit within their first three years on the job, and as many as 50% leave poor, urban schools within five years. Hiring new teachers is "like filling a bucket with a huge hole in the bottom," says Thomas Carroll, president of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, a Washington-based nonprofit.

Why do teachers bail? One of the biggest reasons is pay. U.S. public-school teachers earn an average annual salary of less than $48,000, and they start off at an average of about $32,000. That's what Karie Gladis, 29, earned as a new teacher in Miami. She scrimped for 31⁄2 years and then left for a job in educational publishing. "It was stressful living from paycheck to paycheck," she says. "If my car broke down or if I needed dental work, there was just no wiggle room."

But money isn't the only reason public-school teachers quit. Ben Van Dyk, 25, left a job teaching in a high-poverty Philadelphia school after just one year to take a position at a Catholic school where his earning prospects are lower but where he has more support from mentors, more control over how he teaches and fewer problems with student discipline. Novice teachers are much more likely to call it quits if they work in schools where they feel they have little input or support, says Ingersoll. And there's evidence that the best and brightest are the first to leave. Teachers with degrees from highly selective college are more likely to leave than those from less prestigious schools. In poor districts, attrition rates are so high, says Carroll, that "we wind up taking anybody just to have an adult in the classroom."

How Do You Measure Merit?
To the business-minded people who are increasingly running the nation's schools, there's an obvious solution to the problems of teacher quality and teacher turnover: offer better pay for better performance. The challenge is deciding who deserves the extra cash. Merit-pay movements in the 1920s, '50s and '80s stumbled over just that question, as the perception grew that bonuses were awarded to principals' pets. Charges of favoritism, along with unreliable funding and union opposition, sank such experiments.

But in an era when states are testing all students annually, there's a new, less subjective window onto how well a teacher does her job. As early as 1982, University of Tennessee statistician Sanders seized on the idea of using student test data to assess teacher performance. Working with elementary-school test results in Tennessee, he devised a way to calculate an individual teacher's contribution, or "value added," to student progress. Essentially, his method is this: he takes three or more years of student test results, projects a trajectory for each student based on past performance and then looks at whether, at the end of the year, the students in a given teacher's class tended to stay on course, soar above expectations or fall short. Sanders uses statistical methods to adjust for flaws and gaps in the data. "Under the best circumstances," he claims, "we can reliably identify the top 10% to 30% of teachers."

Sanders devised his method as a management tool for administrators, not necessarily as a basis for performance pay. But increasingly, that's what it is used for. Today he heads a group at the North Carolina-based software firm SAS, which performs value-added analysis for North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and districts in about 15 other states. Most use it to measure schoolwide performance, but some are beginning to use value-added calculations to determine bonuses for individual teachers.

Sanders' method is costly and complicated, however. Under steady pressure from NCLB to raise test scores, some districts have looked for quicker, easier ways to identify and reward teachers who boost achievement. In some cases, they have made the call largely on the basis of a single year's test results—a method experts dismiss as unreliable. In Florida, for instance, one of Governor Jeb Bush's final initiatives before he left office in January 2007 was to push through a merit-pay program that offered a 5% bonus to teachers in the top 25% in each participating district, with selection based at least 50% on how much their students' test scores jumped from one year to the next. Houston had a similar initiative, though without the 25% cap.

Both schemes met with fierce resistance. Teachers rebelled against the notion that a year's worth of instruction could be judged by how students did on a single test on a single day. They objected to the lack of clarity about how teachers of subjects not tested by the state would be assessed. And they railed against a system that pitted one colleague against another in a competition for bonuses. To make matters worse, there were gruesome glitches. In Houston, a newspaper website identified which teachers got bonuses. Later, 99 employees were asked to return about $74,000 in bonus checks issued by mistake. In Florida, one county ran short of bonus funds while another had an embarrassing discrepancy between the number of awards given in predominantly white schools and the number that went to schools with mainly black students. Both Florida and Houston have improved their programs, but local teachers remain wary. "The new plan doesn't have clear goals," charges Gayle Fallon, who heads the Houston Federation of Teachers. She fully expects "all hell to break loose again."

Beyond Merit Pay
There are better ways. Florida and Houston might have avoided their mistakes if they had examined some of the more thoughtful approaches to rewarding good teaching that are being tried elsewhere—programs that actively involve teachers and look at more than one measure of how they do their job. In Denver, for example, Professional Compensation, or ProComp, is the product of a seven-year collaboration among the teachers' union, the district and city hall. Rolled out last school year, ProComp includes nine ways for teachers to raise their earnings, some through bonuses and some through bumps in salary. New hires are automatically enrolled, while veterans have the option of sticking with the old salary schedule. But in just one year, half of Denver's 4,555 teachers have signed on.

For Taylor Betz, the program is a no-brainer. A highly regarded 15-year veteran who teaches math in the city's struggling Bruce Randolph School, Betz can rack up an additional $4,268 this school year if she and her school meet all their goals. That includes $1,067 for working in a high-needs school, another $1,067 if students in her school exceed expectations on the state exams, $356 if she meets professional academic objectives she helped set in the beginning of the year, $1,067 if she earns a good evaluation from her principal and $711 if her school is judged to be a "distinguished school," on the basis of a mix of criteria that includes parent satisfaction.

Before ProComp, Betz had reached the top of the district's pay scale at $53,500 and, despite high marks from her bosses, was looking at nothing more than an annual cost-of-living raise (currently $260) for the rest of her career. "I've worked in hard-to-serve schools my entire career," says Betz. "I make home visits. I make phone calls. I'm looking at ProComp as compensation for the things that are above and beyond." Betz didn't expect performance pay to change anything about how she does her job but says it has made her even more driven. "Now I refuse to let kids fail," she says. "I'm going to bulldoze whatever the problem is and solve it." The bonus money is simply a just reward. "I'm not a money grubber. Most teachers aren't. But people in other professions get raises," she says. "Why shouldn't we?"

There's little research on what makes for a successful merit-pay system, but several factors seem critical, says Matthew Springer, director of the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University. Denver's program includes many of them: a careful effort to earn teacher buy-in to the plan, clarity about how it works, multiple ways of measuring merit, rewards for teamwork and schoolwide success, and reliable financing. In fact, Denver's voters agreed to pay an extra $25 million a year in taxes for nine years to support the program.

It's too soon to say if ProComp will raise achievement in Denver, but a pilot study found that students of teachers who enrolled on a trial basis performed better on standardized tests than other students. The program is already successful by another measure: raising the number of teachers applying to work in Denver's most troubled schools. Jake Firman, 22, who joined Teach for America right out of college in 2007, says he chose Denver from a list of 26 cities largely because of ProComp. "I thought it was a very cool idea," says Firman, who stands to earn extra pay for filling a hard-to-staff spot (middle-school math) at a high-needs school.

Another impressive model is the Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP, created by the Milken Family Foundation in 1999 and now in place in 180 schools in 14 states and Washington. TAP is more than a merit-pay program. At TAP schools, some of which are unionized, raises are based on the teachers' performance—which is measured by a combination of structured observations made four to six times a year and student test results, using a Sanders-style value-added formula. The best TAP teachers can climb the professional ladder in three ways: remaining in the classroom but becoming a mentor to others; leaving one's own classroom to become a full-time teacher of teachers, or master teacher; or taking the traditional route into administration.

The element of TAP that gets the most praise from teachers is its rigorous approach to helping them build and refine their skills and learn from one another. To do this, TAP teachers meet in small groups led by a master teacher for one to two hours a week, generally during the school day. That degree of supervision can be a tough sell to veteran teachers. "I hated it tooth and nail," says Cathy Dailey, who has been teaching science at Bell Street Middle School in Clinton, S.C., for 21 years. "All of a sudden I had to articulate my goals and know that someone was going to come in and watch me." Dailey particularly disliked being forced to reflect in writing on how well her lessons went. "I'd rather you beat me with a stick!" she says. But six years after TAP was introduced, Dailey admits that it has made her more versatile and effective. "I wouldn't be nearly the teacher I am today if it weren't for the big T-A-P," she says. "I do many more labs and more hands-on lessons. I'm always looking for new ideas on the Internet." She even likes writing the reflections. "You really evaluate what you did and how effective you were," she says. "Sometimes I give myself a pat on the back, and sometimes I think, Oh, boy, you've got to change that."

Since Bell Street Middle School adopted TAP in 2001, it has doubled the percentage of students scoring at an advanced level in math and reading and reduced the percentage scoring "below basic" in math 46%. Meanwhile, teacher turnover has fallen from a disastrous 32% a year to less than 10%. Jason Culbertson, who heads TAP in South Carolina, says such improvements in student achievement, quality of teaching and teacher morale are typical. A recent analysis involving 610 TAP teachers in six states, conducted by the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, the nonprofit that runs TAP, found that 38% of TAP teachers produced above-average gains in student achievement in a single year, vs. 26% of teachers in a control group.

This school year South Carolina extended the program from 18 schools to 43, including all 10 schools in rural, impoverished Marlboro County, where 20% of teachers are not even certified. The challenge is funding, says Culbertson. South Carolina's TAP schools draw on a variety of federal, state and foundation funds to pay for stipends of $10,000 for master teachers and $5,000 for mentors and bonuses that range from $350 to $9,500. Culbertson is always looking for ways to attract more talent. His latest project: refurbishing an old Marlboro County mansion as an almost rent-free home for top teachers. "I treat the job more like a crusade," says the 28-year-old former social-studies teacher. "My goal is systematic change across the state."

It's a good goal for an entire nation in need of better-quality teaching. As U.S. school districts embark on hundreds of separate experiments involving merit pay, some lessons seem clear. If the country wants to pay teachers like professionals—according to their performance, rather than like factory workers logging time on the job—it has to provide them with other professional opportunities, like the chance to grow in the job, learn from the best of their peers, show leadership and have a voice in decision-making, including how their work is judged. Making such changes would require a serious investment by school districts and their taxpayers. But it would reinvigorate a noble profession.

—With reporting by Rita Healy/Denver, Hilary Hylton/Houston and Kathie Klarreich/Miami

Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1713174,00.html

Another District Moves to All Day K

2008-02-20T09:33:00.004-05:00

Just last week I posted an article about Farmington’s move to all-day Kindergarten.

Holly Schools in Oakland County just announced that they too are going to all day K.

Oakland Press: Kindergartners to attend school for full day (02/20/08)

You may recall that Governor Granhom was going to "ask" districts to move to all day K. I had to chuckle at the thought that these two schools are likely be counted next year as those "heeding the Governor's call", despite the fact that they embarked on the "all-day" path long before the Governor's polite request. But I digress....

Boardmember Patrick McKenney noted, “When you look at what’s going to be required of these kids to graduate, the sooner we get them academically involved, the better.”

It appears they are offing a choice for half-day, just as Farmington. But the comments from Superintendent Kent Barnes are important to consider:

Barnes said he understands some parents have concerns, and that’s why the district wanted to offer the half-day option.

“All-day kindergarten has been offered in the south and in many school districts since the ‘80s, even the late ‘70s,” Barnes said.

When Barnes was an elementary school principal in Kentucky, the district he worked for had a full-day kindergarten program that offered parents the option of picking their child up halfway through the day.

“I had one parent who wanted to try that and, after three weeks, the child said, ‘I want to stay and do stuff,’” Barnes said.

Moving to a full-day, five-day a week kindergarten program was not done because of money or any other reason, Barnes said.

“The real reason is to increase student achievement for the benefit of the child — that’s it,” he added.

“We feel it’s in the best interest of the children as far as academics.”

I hope others are listening!

==> Mike.

Is the MEA a child of the UAW?

2008-02-17T22:24:00.006-05:00

Here is an interesting piece:

Projo.com: Blue-collar teacher contracts work against the students (02/10/08)

It's a summary of comments by Ray Spears, a former superintendent in Rhode Island. He supported the idea of the unions in the mid-60's because data showed that the teachers were truly under-compensated. However, he feels that today they've worn out their welcome. Here are a few good excerpts:

Spear was “just a young kid of a superintendent” in Michigan when that state’s collective-bargaining law passed in 1965. “When I sat down at the bargaining table for the first time, their contract proposal looked more like a General Motors contract than an education contract. They’d gone to the automotive industry for advice. Those are the roots of the situation we’re in now.”

I was unaware that the MEA roots came from the UAW.

The article makes the case for the birth of the teacher unions, but goes on to illustrate how they are actually harmful today:

Currently, Rhode Island’s teachers’ unions are monolithically powerful forces that “fail to regard the needs of students,” according to Spear. These unions protect bad teachers, make a principal’s job nearly impossible, slow or stop educational reforms, and critically, in this fiscal climate, drive the cost of doing business through the roof.

And

In an unfortunate accident of history, the labor contracts that won decent pay for teachers also cemented into place a factory-model design for schooling. Blue-collar labor contracts spell out and limit a worker’s obligations on the factory floor, or in this case a classroom, as if teachers were as interchangeable as die-press operators.

The key here is that teachers are professionals, and should be treated as such. The union detracts from instead of enhancing their professionalism.

UPDATE: I just received a note that has me worried some might believe I am suggesting all teachers only "work to contract". I do not believe that is the case, and want to be crystal clear about that. I know MANY teachers who go far above and beyond on a regular basis. I repeatedly see it in Rochester Schools. These teachers are, quite frankly, the saviors of public education. Ironically, the union contracts prevent them from receiving the financial recognition they deserve. The important point I saw in the passage was that it spotlights how the structure of union contracts REMOVES professionalism by establishing absurd rules and minimums or maximums behind which some will hide.

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

Blue-collar teacher contracts work against the students

01:00 AM EST on Sunday, February 10, 2008

“I’m probably the only person in the room who was actually at the negotiating table in the mid-1960s when the first collective bargaining laws were being passed.” So said Ray Spear, former superintendent in Coventry and now a member of the Coventry School Committee, addressing the Board of Regents.

Recently, the Regents held a series of public meetings to hear creative ideas about how to prevent teacher strikes in strike-prone Rhode Island. The hearing I attended was packed to the gills with school administrators, school committee members and union officials.

Spear went on to wholeheartedly endorse “the granting of the initial bargaining rights for teachers.” Later, in an interview, he elaborated. “I was sympathetic with teachers because at the time they were not being paid at a scale comparable to other workers. I personally researched what other B.A.-level workers were being paid. Teachers weren’t even close. And they weren’t getting any benefits, no personal leave, maternity leave....”

But now, this elder statesman of the Rhode Island education community told the Regents, “It is my sincere belief that the teacher negotiation process has worn out its welcome and gone far beyond the purpose and intent which it was to serve.”

Currently, Rhode Island’s teachers’ unions are monolithically powerful forces that “fail to regard the needs of students,” according to Spear. These unions protect bad teachers, make a principal’s job nearly impossible, slow or stop educational reforms, and critically, in this fiscal climate, drive the cost of doing business through the roof.

The current problem is the result of flawed thinking back in the 1960s.

Spear was “just a young kid of a superintendent” in Michigan when that state’s collective-bargaining law passed in 1965. “When I sat down at the bargaining table for the first time, their contract proposal looked more like a General Motors contract than an education contract. They’d gone to the automotive industry for advice. Those are the roots of the situation we’re in now.”

Rhode Island, too, had robust textile and jewelry factories back then, and blue-collar unions to turn to. In an unfortunate accident of history, the labor contracts that won decent pay for teachers also cemented into place a factory-model design for schooling. Blue-collar labor contracts spell out and limit a worker’s obligations on the factory floor, or in this case a classroom, as if teachers were as interchangeable as die-press operators.

States reacted differently to the advent of collective bargaining. Connecticut’s law limited what could be negotiated, so school administrators never lost powers such as the right to hire and evaluate teachers. In its 1993 Education Reform Act, Massachusetts shifted key rights, such as hiring, back to management.

Rhode Island’s 1966 law, called the Michaelson Act, put “working conditions” on the table, which is to say everything that happens at a school. Spear echoed many of the speakers at the Regents hearing: “Our legislature should decide what’s out of bounds for the negotiation, and limit the scope of bargaining.” As it is, any administrative change can be a bone of contention, for which the union wants extra compensation, ever driving up costs.

Spear says, “So we’ve gotten way out of whack. The top-step teachers are getting $70,000, $80,000 a year. But the people paying the bills make $30,000 or $40,000. We need to find out what someone else, with a similar background, with a bachelor’s or master’s is getting.”

According to the Education Intelligence Agency, the average teacher’s salary nationally exceeds the average worker’s salary by about 25 percent. Rhode Island teachers are number one in the nation, by this measure, exceeding their average fellow worker by 47 percent.

Spear growls, “The unions are running this state into the ground. In fact, they’re running the whole country into the ground because they can’t get it through their heads that the reason for our financial problems is at least in part due to us trying to keep up with their demands. If you go out into the streets, you see a lot of foreign cars because they’re cheaper. They’re even better. I love the state of Michigan, but it’s going under because they’re in the same rut as Rhode Island.”

Those were the only two states to lose population last year.

The administrators at the Regents hearing were poker-faced through Spear’s tirade, probably because Rhode Island administrators are flat-out scared of the unions. Unions can make their lives miserable. If unions don’t get what they want, they call strikes, bury administration in grievances or, most perniciously, implement work-to-rule, which is when teachers do only what’s in the contract — as if a professional’s job could be described by a contract.

Spear was the only one at the hearing who had the nerve to say that the whole negotiating process, using a model designed for blue-collar jobs, is painfully obsolete, seriously impeding academic improvement and, most importantly, stealing resources from the kids.

Julia Steiny, a former member of the Providence School Board, consults for government agencies and schools; she is co-director of Information Works!, Rhode Island’s school-accountability project. She can be reached at juliasteiny@cox.net , or c/o EdWatch, The Providence Journal, 75 Fountain St., Providence, RI 02902.