Race to the Top

The Rural School and Community Trust reports that in its most recent round of Investing in Innovation Grants (known as i3), the Department of Education "offered up to two bonus points if they included programs or strategies aimed at the particular challenges and needs of rural schools.

The result?

Of 49 recipients chosen, only 19 even claimed that some aspect of their grant would apply to rural schools, and most of those were not developed by or for rural schools, but were simply vague references to adapting innovations designed for urban settings. "Only two proposals are designed to operate entirely in rural schools."  Here's the link to the full story and report:

Taking Advantage: The Rural Competitive Preference in the Investing in Innovation Program: Rural School & Community Trust.

Rural schools exist in a context that is fundamentally different from the urban context that draws most of the attention of education policy makers and scholars. Certainly, rural students and educators share many challenges common to the education process everywhere. But they also face unique challenges. Those are the challenges that proposals claiming the rural competitive preference in i3 were supposed to address. With only a few exceptions, they did not. Open competition is not the best way to encourage educational innovation in a rural context.

Yet, President Obama says Race to the Top is the "most influential education reform of our generation," and it should be the model for ESEA reauthorization?  Guess those who aren't big enough or well-financed enough to compete just get left behind...

 Many of you have probably already heard about this recent piece of legislation highlighted in a recent EdWeek article:

Reps. Polis, Davis Introduce Educator-Evaluation Bill - Teacher Beat - Education Week.

This is a bill to watch. Though it probably won't advance on it own, it is a marker for language that could get wrapped into an ESEA rewrite—or added as an amendment to that larger vehicle. Remember, both Polis and Davis are on the House Education Committee that will take the lead in shaping that chamber's revision of the ESEA.

Why are these two politicans (with the blessing of the Administration apparently) pushing out this portion of the Blueprint/RttT ahead of everything else; even ahead of full reauthorization? Why attempt to legally bind the funding of our neediest schools to teacher evaluation systems that don't even exist yet in many places (some are only now in the process of being developed; and the promise was that they would be developed jointly with teachers)? Why preempt that work by requiring over 50% of the weight be assigned to test results and/or still statistically unstable, and pedagogically unsound VAM calculations?

The wording of the EdWeek report suggests that the bill's authors believe the most important skill of teachers at high needs schools should be the ability to raise test scores (since teachers who can't do that would be barred from those schools, but presumably free to teach at others). If I'm misreading the intent of the bill, please correct me. Perhaps, they have not been listening to those who do, in practice, work in high needs schools and have consistently produced academic excellence among their students. If they had, they would surely have learned this is probably the least effective way to get that done or to get more quality teachers at those schools. 

Those of us at TLN and Center for Teaching Quality, along with many others, have looked closely at the issue of high quality teachers in high needs schools {News Flash: There are already some great, high quality teachers who have committed ourselves to working in these schools].  To be a truly effective teacher for students in these most under-resourced, highly challenging schools requires a unique set of skills. Our federal and state reform efforts might be more successful if they were aimed at supporting the conditions which allow those skill sets to develop and flourish.  Consider examples such as Mitchell Elementary School in Arizona where 20 of the 34 teachers went through National Board Certification process together. Other schools have tried this approach as well. Creating environments in which teachers can grow in competence and expertise, and where they are not only allowed but encouraged to use that expertise in ways that really help students has to occur simultaneously (or maybe even prior to) developing of truly effective evaluations. Otherwise, we simply continue putting good (potentially great) teachers into dysfunctional settings.  Linda, a commenter on my last blog post put it well:

    How do we attract better quality applicants? I was a top student and what attracted me to the profession was autonomy, the chance to be creative in a lot of different areas, and a schedule that would help me parent my kids. I took a break from teaching while my kids were young and when I came back I did not even look at being a public school teacher- creativity and autonomy are gone there. I work at a charter school now where they treat me like a professional who can make sound decisions about educating my students. Why would a smart, highly educated person want to be told what to do and when to do it every day, whether or not it makes sense in the context of the situation? You couldn't pay me enough to do that.

When I was growing up, we had a kiddie table at Thanksgiving in another room, while the grownups sat at the big table making important family decisions between bites of turkey and sweet potato pie.

This insightful comment from Alfie Kohn sums up what has become to me a parallel scenario in the national debate on education reform: Classroom teachers have been pretty much pushed to the margins, if not shut out entirely.

Alfie Kohn: What Passes for School Reform: "Value-Added" Teacher Evaluation and Other Absurdities.

Unfortunately, the people who know the most about the subject tend to work in the field of education, which means their protests can be dismissed. Educational theorists and researchers are just "educationists" with axes to grind, hopelessly out of touch with real classrooms. And the people who spend their days in real classrooms, teaching our children -- well, they're just afraid of being held accountable, aren't they? (Actually, proponents of corporate-style school reform find it tricky to attack teachers, per se, so they train their fire instead on the unions that represent them.) Once the people who do the educating have been excluded from a conversation about how to fix education, we end up hearing mostly from politicians, corporate executives, and journalists.

Consider some recent examples:

1) How many of our nation's leading classroom teachers are included in the list of main speakers and panelists at the upcoming NBC Education Nation Summit?  We are, however, invited to a Teachers Town Hall meeting, and they'll be separate activities focusing on the students' point-of-view.

2) An upcoming Oprah Winfrey show on education will have as guests on stage what two experts--Michelle Rhee and Bill Gates. (Hopefully, more balance will be added before it airs or in a subsequent show).

If teacher voice is represented at all, it's usually in the form of a obligatory invitation to the teacher union presidents. Worse yet, we teachers are surveyed or allowed "input" or "buy-in" after major decisions have been made. For example, despite some highly publicized listening tours and town halls, Secretary Duncan and the Department of Education have shown little interest in serious revision of their Blueprint for ESEA Reauthorization, paternalistically dismissing concerns expressed by teachers on how some of these policies will negatively impact students and teaching quality.

Isn't it a waste not to let the nation hear more from the people who have dedicated their lives to education, and who in fact have done everyday, year-in and year-out exactly what we claim we want to see happen more in our schools? For starters, there are over 82,000 National Board Certified Teachers in this country, and the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards is certainly one organization that has led the way in defining and identifying highly accomplished teaching.

Then, there are the many subject area organizations, each with its share of recognized expert teachers. These include the teachers that other teachers look to for examples and advice. I would also proudly recommend my colleagues here at Teacher Leader Network, several of whom are trailblazers in education on many fronts, and have made measurable and meaningful differences for students over their careers.

If the quality of classroom teaching is as important as research and experience tell us it is, why should the ideas and insights of quality teachers continue to be a sideshow to the education reform main events?

If you haven't seen it yet, this article in NYT is an absolute MUST read. It is a story that is being repeated (unnecessarily) all across the country. Here's an excerpt:

On Education - A Popular Principal, Wounded by Good Intentions - NYTimes.com.

Ms. Irvine wasn’t removed by anyone who had seen her work (often 80-hour weeks) at a school where 37 of 39 fifth graders were either refugees or special-ed children and where, much to Mr. Mudasigana’s delight, his daughter Evangeline learned to play the violin.

Ms. Irvine was removed because the Burlington School District wanted to qualify for up to $3 million in federal stimulus money for its dozen schools.

And under the Obama administration rules, for a district to qualify, schools with very low test scores, like Wheeler, must do one of the following: close down; be replaced by a charter (Vermont does not have charters); remove the principal and half the staff; or remove the principal and transform the school.

Administrators and teachers who have been working, often at great personal cost, in high needs schools with our most challenged students should not be sacrificed on the altar of federal assistance. The long-term loss to students and the community is actually greater than what will be gained by the temporary grant aid the state and districts are pursuing.

For those familiar with the history of American education, this scenario bears a troubling resemblance to what became known as the "massive resistance" strategy used across the South to undermine both the 1954 Brown decision and the initial implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, particularly the Title I provisions. In the name of bringing schools into compliance with federal guidelines, countless black teachers and administrators--many of whom had been instrumental in the struggle for equality--were removed.  Sadly, the federal government turned its head while these abuses were carried out in its name. This painful lesson from history does not need to be repeated.

The Administration needs to pay closer attention to the weaknesses in its education reform plans, and listen to the thousands of voices urging them to change some of the policies, such as the ineffective turnaround strategies and the high stakes penalties attached to flawed testing data before more damage is done.

For more information and ideas on what teachers, parents, students and others can do to help visit: Teachers Letters To Obama on Facebook.

Syndicate content