MEA contractual “firewall” blocks assessment data

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

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

Hit the Reset Button on K12 Schools!

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.”

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

Kids First, or MEA First?

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.

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

Academically Waterboarding Middle School Math Students

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”.

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

Outsiders Can Help Public Education

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.

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

Witness the anger and bitterness

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

Rochester Eccentric: Letters (10/16/08)

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

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

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

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

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

==> Mike.

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

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

The real disconnect

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

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

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

Melanie Johnson
Rochester Hills


Reno is wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue Thomasson
Rochester Hills

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some boards fail to ask at all.

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

This clearly seems to be nothing short of gross negligence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wrote about this issue in this opinion piece:

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

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

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

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

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

Focus on facts in school safety debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This disconnect from reality is a huge concern.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image and Appearance… Education’s top priority?

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

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

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

The responses almost always point to test scores.

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

I wrote about this in an article here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2008 Algebra Revolution

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

I wrote about it in the an opinion piece:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parents lobby to raise the education bar and face hurdles

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

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

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

Mr. Pruneau advises:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other teacher comments I heard included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant thoughts notably absent from the discussion that night:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$13 Billion is not enough?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good ideas merit adequate funding
August 7, 2008

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

The resultant dilemma is called an unfunded mandate.

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

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

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

The problem of unfunded mandates doesn't stop there.

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

The issue could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==> Mike.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(OUCH! So very true!)

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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