Need some help assessing the Sweet Sixteen of RTT finalists?  Partnership for Learning has got you covered, even if it all turns out to be a dog and pony show.  Meanwhile, we’re up to our eyeballs with Common Core blog responses.  But common standards don’t mean that everything is uniform:  some say teaching doesn’t need a halo, others say it should require a passport.  Let’s just settle this peacefully!

–Marisa Goldstein, Fordham intern

“We’ve gotten all of these accolades, and our schools are showing such success, so do we change policies to go after ones that we’re not even guaranteed to get?”
—Paul Pinksy, Maryland State Senator

“O’Malley to push teacher changes,” Baltimore Sun

8%
The proposed reduction in California per-pupil spending in Gov. Schwarzenegger’s 2010-2011 budget

“Outlook grim for cash strapped schools,” Associated Press

Quotable:

“I think it would be a tragedy to talk about Martin Luther King Jr., while not being able to talk about the fact that he had a strong Christian faith. I’m hoping that’s not the direction we’re headed.”
- Jonathan Saenz, Lobbyist, Free Market Foundation

“Texas Braces for Fight over Social Studies Lessons,” Washington Post

Notable:

$3.95:
Price for a lesson plan on apartheid in South Africa on teacherspayteachers.com.

“Intellectual Property at Issue,” Centre Daily Times

If you haven’t seen it already, this article in this month’s Atlantic is well worth a read, and will certainly get a lot of attention from people on all sides of the education debate.

The article focuses on how Teach for America has been tracking data and conducting extensive retroactive analyses in an attempt to determine what makes teachers effective (and whether they are selecting for indicators that do)–something that virtually nobody has been able to reliably do.

What struck me most about the article, though, was not the subtle conclusions from this work but the real obvious one that keeps staring us in the face: Inexperienced teachers without traditional certification–ala TFA–perform at least as well as, if not better than, their more experienced, certified peers. Or to put it another way, the billions of dollars we spent on teacher training and certification every year appear to be adding little value when it comes to student achievement gains.

In the midst of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, when every policy change is evaluated by how much money it will save, why aren’t reformers clamoring to end arguably one of the most wasteful (and potentially least effective) requirements in education?

Perhaps it’s a failure of imagination? While it’s common knowledge that existing teacher certification programs as a whole add very little value, even the education reform community has been forced to adopt a “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” mentality when it comes to the issue of teacher preparation.

Take for example, Teacher U. The leaders of three of the most successful CMOs in the nation–including, in full disclosure, my previous employer, Achievement First–have come together to reclaim teacher preparation by starting their own training program in the service of the existing mandates on teachers. I know that these leaders are committed to trying to figure out what really drives achievement in the classroom and to working to align teacher preparation courses to those indicators, so the fact that they’re starting their own teacher preparation program is not troubling. What troubles me is that the existence of one or two quality programs–lead by reformers–will make it that much harder to eliminate these courses as barriers to entry into the classroom. And we all know that the exception does not prove the rule. That a quality teacher preparation program exists does not mean 100% of all teachers to be forced into preparation programs of varying quality across the country.

Instead, why don’t take advantage of the current push for savings anywhere we can find them, by redoubling our efforts to tear these certification walls down. At the same time, let’s make sure that in the push for better data systems under Race to the Top we put accountability for teacher training programs at the top of the list. Only then, under a voluntary system accountable to the teachers who choose to attend and the schools that hire them, we will be able to create the kinds of training programs that can nimbly respond to the needs of individual teachers and schools and to help attract more of the gritty teachers we need.

Quotable:

“The profession for 150 years was grounded in management, organization, government, politics, and finance. Those things are important, but they are secondary to learning and teaching.”
- Joseph F. Murphy, developer of the VAL-ED system for evaluating principals

“Review Backs New Tool for Principal Evaluation,” Education Week (subscription required)

Notable:

$350,000:
Maximum projected cost of a new New York City program to offer free online SAT prep to all high school juniors. The program is expected to serve as many as 50,000 students.

“SAT help for all,” New York Post

Quotable:

“Most of the federal grants are organized around concentrations of poverty, we don’t really have concentrations.”
-Rae Ann Knopf, Vermont Deparment of Education

“Is Race to the Top an Urban Game?” Politics K-12 (EdWeek)

Notable:

31:
Percent of San Diego teachers transferring between 2004 and 2008 who moved to a school with lower test scores, while 48% moved to schools with higher scores. A similar (but less stark) trend held for schools’ poverty levels.

“Slowing the Revolving Door of Poor Schools,” Voice of San Diego

Quotable:

“If you say the next person who talks in class will be set on fire and rolled down the hallway, you’re in trouble if someone talks and you don’t set them on fire and roll them down the hallway.”
-Kendra Wallace, Principal of Daniel Webster Middle School in Los Angeles

Los Angeles Times: Controlling a classroom isn’t as easy as ABC

Notable:

10:
Percent of state aid payments to schools and local governments delayed Sunday by New York Governor David Patterson, who accused legislators of being irresponsible and “sleeping on the job.”

Associated Press: NY gov orders delaying 10 percent of school aid

In his recent blog post, Mike rightly noted that in the tracking debate, “to track or not to track” is NOT the question. He argued that tracking–the move to differentiate between students who would take “college prep” courses and those who would follow a “vocational” or other track–should be replaced with “ability grouping” where all students in a class can achieve at roughly the same level. And he argued that ability grouping should begin early to help ensure our highest-performing students do not slip through the cracks.

To be sure, “ability grouping,” done right, can be a win/win. It allows teachers to push the rigor and the pace for our highest achieving students and to provide the extra support, instruction, and time that our most struggling students need.

Sounds easy, right?

Sadly, not. Like all things in education and life, the devil lies squarely in the details.

Ability grouping requires schools to make decisions about which students are able to handle the pace of the most rigorous classes–often honors and AP courses–and which should be placed in the “lower” classes–classes where students are typically exposed to less-rigorous curricula and “tracks” that often do not adequately prepare students for competitive colleges and universities. These decisions are, logically, generally made by looking at a student’s achievement to date.

Unfortunately, individual student achievement–particularly for low-performing students in urban schools–is frequently a consequence of a host of factors. Aptitude? Partially. But many low-achieving students–particularly low-socioeconomic status and minority students–struggle thanks to a host of factors that have nothing to do with their inherent ability to succeed, including: discipline challenges, apathy, being taught by a revolving door of our most inexperienced and sometimes lowest performing teachers, and so on.

What’s more, in the hands of an expert teacher with outstanding classroom management, clear discipline systems, high expectations, and instructional expertise, students who struggle for these “other” reasons have the ability to “catch up” to their high-achieving peers. Quickly.

Too-early ability grouping can therefore inadvertently condemn these high-potential, low-performing students into lower classes when they can handle–and should be exposed to–the rigor of more advanced coursework. And, sadly, these “tracks” frequently become castes from which it is all but impossible to escape.

Of course, as Mike notes, too-late ability grouping can hold back our highest-potential students.

Unfortunately, as Tom Loveless’s study has revealed, most middle schools have looked at this dilemma as a question of whether to track students at all. And they have decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater by abandoning tracking and ability grouping altogether.

In an effort to correct this problem, however, it would be a mistake to over-learn a lesson and let the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction. Instead, schools and districts must navigate the tough question of when to track students and must ensure that students aren’t being relegated to ability groups for reasons other than their innate ability to achieve

–Kathleen Porter-Magee

Fordham’s new report (about tracking/detracking in middle school) is causing some buzz. First, there’s a thorough National Journal piece this morning and Newsweek has an interesting write-up that discusses the tracking issue and our study as well. There are some great discussions and comments going on in response to blog posts by Joanne Jacobs and The Core Knowledge Blog. Among other things, public “commenters” are debating/discussing the arguments for and against tracking, whether differentiated instruction is a realistic alternative, and the challenges of teaching different types of classes (AP versus low-level, etc.). Very interesting stuff. Check out all of them, if possible. One thing is clear – folks seem very interested in whether or not kids should be taught with peers of their same achievement level or peers of all achievement levels.

Quotable:

“You don’t want to get into a situation where a teacher is going to argue or parse words, or get defensive about a rating, if you’re interested in teacher performance improving.  I think it’s easy to create unanticipated consequences inadvertently.”
-Charlotte Danielson, educational consultant

Education Week (subscription required): New Teacher-Evaluation Systems Face Obstacles

Notable:

8.5%:
High school dropout rate for second-generation Hispanics born in the U.S.  By comparison, the dropout rate among all Hispanic youths ages 16-24 is 17 percent, roughly three times higher than white youths and close to double the rate for black youths.

Associated Press: U.S.-Born Hispanics See Gains in Education, Income

Quotable:

“The bottom line is teachers need to be retained based on their achievement, not on how long they’ve been at a job…This is where the United States is going and we’re just with the early leaders.”
- Rep. Rich Crandall, chairman of the Arizona House Education Committee, Title

“Law changes way teachers contract with districts,” Arizona Republic

Notable:

75:
Percentage of Minnesota charter schools that, according to a recent study, had at least one flagged, substantive financial management irregularity on their 2007-8 school year audit.

“Charter school accountability starts here,” Bemidji Pioneer (MN) (registration may be required)

Quotable:

“M&M sorting is not a new concept…I made it easier for teachers to do. They just have to click and print.” -Erica Bohrer, a Long Island elementary school teacher who sells lesson plans online

“Selling Lessons Online Raises Cash and Questions,” New York Times (registration required)

Notable:

$15 Million:

Approximate savings Los Angeles Unified School District superintendant Ramon C. Cortines expects from each of four furlough days he has proposed in an effort to close the district’s budget deficit.

“L.A. Unified asks union to OK four furlough days this year,” Los Angeles Times

This article over at Education.com about the state of writing caught my eye. Will Fitzhugh takes to task a report that the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) published earlier this year called Writing in the 21st Century . In it, Kathleen Yancey, NCTE Past President recounts a pretty dismal history of how writing has been received in the U.S. (e.g., it’s been linked to testing and not given much “cultural respect”). Fitzhugh is displeased with Yancey’s solution:

So, how does NCTE propose to free writing from its unhappy association with testing, episodes of despair, and so on? By encouraging students to do what they are doing already: texting, twitting, emailing, sending notes, sending photos, and the like–only this time it will be part of the high school "writing" curriculum. In other words, instead of NCTE encouraging educators to lift kids out of the crib, it wants them to jump in with them.

I don’t entirely agree with Fitzhugh’s assessment of Yancey’s solution. True, her history is pretty slanted and her exuberance for new media a tad overwhelming. But ignoring how students communicate will not make them better writers (and no, I’m not saying texting does). Still, Yancey’s right that composing at the screen today is often interlaced with plenty of on-the-fly web browsing. Further, we’re not sure how “access to the vast amount and kinds of resources on the web alter our [writing] models.”

I guess I’m not convinced that we need writing “models.” Certainly the “process writing” model of the 70’s and 80’s (a la Donald Graves , Lucy Calkins , and Nancie Atwell ) led to many a formulaic paper. That model went something like this: Brainstorm (with a Venn diagram preferably), prewrite, write, rewrite, start all over again. And pay little attention to writing conventions since you can automatically pick that up by reading and writing a lot.

Yancey concedes that the implementation of process writing led to “formalization” and narrowing of writing. Frankly, I don’t see how devising another composing model––one that somehow captures the highly interactive, even organic, nature of writing that now exists with technology—will ultimately benefit students in the long run. Whenever we try to bottle up a formula, it ends up being just that.

I am in no way keen on the “research” produced by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) but I have to admit that they have raised an important issue in their latest report that merits attention–that is, if you can stomach the rhetoric it’s clothed in. The report is about international recruitment of teachers into the U.S. Of course, their unsurprising angle here is that public school systems have been “unwilling or unable to address the root causes of a growing teacher shortage” so they’ve started to import teachers. (Forget that the whole teacher shortage idea is suspect at best.) They go on to say that these teachers “are ripe for exploitation by for-profit recruiters who have found yet another way to extract private profit from a public system.” Oh, boy, here we go. Then, they gather a smattering of sensationalist news coverage from around the country that contends, in part, that these teachers are housed in “dormitories” with “bunk beds” and then asks (drum roll please): “How much are these teachers being charged to sleep in bunk beds????” (Extra three question marks are mine.) Alas, it is not my aim to rip apart these anecdotes; I am sure that some of the tales of “visa fraud,” “alien smuggling,” [and] “indentured servitude” are likely true. (Jay Mathews thinks the unscrupulous practices are one “reason why we should celebrate groups like Teach for America that are working hard to persuade more Americans to consider teaching in those districts that have the greatest shortages.”)

But the larger point that this report raises for me is the need for better data. The report estimates that nearly 19,000 teachers were working in the U.S. on temporary visas in 2007, mostly in high need schools (if true, that’s not that high, considering we have nearly 4 million teachers). Closer to home, however, it also estimates that nearly 600 imported teachers from the Philippines are now working in Baltimore schools (roughly 10% of their teaching workforce). The problem is that we really can’t be sure how accurate these numbers are. AFT states, “One of the biggest obstacles to understanding and affecting teacher migration is a lack of comprehensive and accurate data.” Apparently the data are complicated, not readily available and must be cobbled together from disparate data sources. Surely data on work visas and exchange visas are ripe ammunition for those looking to plug them for their own ideas about immigration reform.

But the motives of the education community are simpler. Namely, we’d like to know exactly how many of these teachers there are and where they teach; how they are trained (is the training better or worse than our own?) and what we might learn from it; how building leaders, parents, and students perceive the work of internationally trained teachers; and importantly, how they perform in relation to teachers trained in America (do teachers from certain countries outperform others?). I’m no expert on international teacher recruitment but I do know that we don’t know enough about it. Maybe some of this information is out there. Do let me know.

Me and the AFT need it.

In a City Journal review of the new Malcolm Gladwell book, Outliers: The Story of Success, Laura Vanderkam praises his prose and calls it an “engaging” read. But she also quite bluntly calls out the author on his insistence that “it’s the best students who get the best teaching and the most attention.” She strongly disagrees – calling this “patently untrue.” And what does she use to back up her argument?

“A recent study from the Fordham Institute found that in the era of No Child Left Behind, teachers say they focus far more on their slower students than their quicker ones. Few American elementary schools group students extensively by ability, leaving the brightest students coasting through without ever doing the hard work that would allow them truly to excel later on. Many get bored and underachieve.”

That’s right! Fordham’s “High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB” indeed found that low-achieving students receive much more attention from teachers than do advanced students. Read more about it here.

Overall, Gladwell’s Outliers is an exploration of the complex forces that makes some people wildly successful — including “hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies.” Extremely hard work is also a key factor in the mix, he says. As Vanderkam notes:

“Gladwell devotes a particularly thought-provoking chapter to the KIPP schools-charter schools for low-income kids that specialize in extending the school day and ending summer vacation-as an example of how we might introduce a “Chinese” work ethic into American inner cities.”

Along these lines, Gladwell and Vanderkam might want to check out yet another top-notch Fordham publication: “Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-City Schools and the New Paternalism.” The book profiles 6 wildly successful inner-city schools, including a KIPP school, to find out what makes them work so well.

Today’s Friday, which means there’s a pretty good chance your child is being taught by a substitute teacher. According to this new study by the Center for American Progress, public school teachers are more likely to be absent on Mondays and Fridays, and on any given day one in 20 teachers is out. Their absences add up to $4 billion a year in substitute teacher payments and associated administrative costs. USA Today’s Greg Toppo reports that study author Raegan Miller suggests paying teachers for unused sick leave. Read more of the study here and read Greg’s report here.

No more wooly-headed education reform ideas from me. In today’s Education Gadfly I wager

…that a majority of teachers in remote rural schools and mid-sized urban communities will continue to come from the middle ranks of middling colleges. Or worse. So policymakers and philanthropists might ask: what can we do to make sure that their students get a strong education too?

Read the whole piece here.

but will keep paying them nonetheless.

Andrew Ferguson reviews in today’s Wall Street Journal a book that goes behind the scenes at Harvard Business School–and seemingly reveals what one might expect to find behind the scenes at Harvard Business School. And USA Today’s peerless education reporter, Greg Toppo, talks with journalist Donna Foote about her new book, Relentless Pursuit, which follows four members of Teach For America who worked at Los Angeles’s Locke High School.

Teacher quality in Texas is “inequitable” (poorly constructed headline, Houston Chronicle). Mike says: Who cares?