TW: Alter's point is simple, given the still new administration, a respected energetic Secretary of Education and the available stimulus money if educational reform cannot occur now, when will it ever. Two things stand in the way. A recalcitrant Congress dominated by those who love to smear educational funding around like peanut butter without actually accomplishing anything (another systematic bi-partisan governance failure which I blame on voters not their elected lackies). Two an educational establishment firmly entrenched and not amenable to hard-hitting accountability processes. The educational establishment dominated by a huge Democratic constituency, teacher's unions, and local governments guarding their turf with aplomb.
Call me skeptical on much reform occurring.
As a footnote, I have several acquaintances who are teachers, they are absolutely petrified at expressing their opinions to an acquaintance. There is some sort of Orwellian thing going on where they fear for their jobs should they speak out.
From Jon Alter at Newsweek:
"...[Obama and Educ. Secretary Duncan] understand that the key to fixing education is better teaching, and the key to better teaching is figuring out who can teach and who can't.
Just as Obama has leverage over the auto industry to impose tough fuel--economy standards, he now has at least some leverage over the education industry to impose teacher-effectiveness standards. The question is whether he will be able to use it, or will he get swallowed by what's known as the Blob, the collection of educrats and politicians who claim to support reform but remain fiercely committed to the status quo.
Teacher effectiveness–say it three times. Last week a group called the New Teacher Project released a report titled "The Widget Effect" that argues that teachers are viewed as indistinguishable widgets–states and districts are "indifferent to variations in teacher performance"–and notes that more than 99 percent of teachers are rated satisfactory. The whole country is like Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegon, except all the teachers are above average, too.
Why? The short answer is teachers' unions. Duncan complained recently that the California school system has a harmful "firewall" between student evaluation and teacher evaluation. In other words, teachers can't be evaluated on whether their students actually learned anything between September and June. The head of the San Francisco union says it's nuts to judge teachers on whether there's evidence that shows improvement in their classrooms. An A for accountability, eh?
Fortunately, Duncan has a huge new club in his hands–billions in stimulus money and Title I aid for poor schools. A chunk of it (about $10 billion total) is reserved for innovative "Race to the Top" funds. Duncan's idea (with backing from Obama) is that a few states that are moving fast on turning around failing schools and improving measurable teacher effectiveness should get most of that money.
This is spot-on substantively, but treacherous politically. Congress likes to see money spread like peanut butter across the country. It makes members look like they're "doing something for education." Recall how Duncan's predecessor, Margaret Spellings, saw her "Innovation Fund" used for such cutting-edge projects as a whaling museum.
Like Obama and Duncan, Rep. George Miller, the leading reformer in Congress, wants the money to be targeted on just a few programs with track records in turning around poorly performing schools and training teachers better. He rightly figures we know what works now and should just go ahead and fund it. But his colleagues have their own whaling-museum ideas, so the peanut-butter politics continue.
On Capitol Hill last week, members of Congress insisted that the administration stick to the "formulas"–Washington-speak for the same old, same old. And they want to make sure the $48 billion (real money, even by Geithnerian standards) in education stimulus funds continue to be spent exclusively on preventing teacher layoffs, not on reform...
The big question now is how to tighten the weak strings that were attached to the stimulus. Those strings merely ask states to show they are "making progress" and "making improvements" in critical areas like standards, data systems to measure success and incentives for teachers to work in at-risk schools.
With some bureaucratic cojones, Obama can enforce those requirements before the last $16 billion in "state stabilization" stimulus funds get disbursed this fall. This is easier said than done. The incentive to peanut-butter (sorry, Teacher, I turned it into a verb) the money is powerful not just on Capitol Hill but inside the Department of Education, where making nice to Congress is the path of least resistance. It takes a tough man to say, in the middle of a recession, "no improvement, no check." But if not now, when?..."
2 comments:
A major problem in teacher evaluation is the practice of 'rating', done by a variety of judges such as administrators, researchers, newspapers, and even self-reporting. The process of 'rating' is fraught with bias, intended and unintended.
Why not take one more step in providing feedback to teachers and other stakeholders - and gather objective data on the teaching practices and resultant student behaviors in the classroom? We have the technology and the best practice research. Tools such as the eCOVE Observation Software make the process very easy and clear. [http://www.ecove.net]
The use of simple timer and counter data collection tools remove nearly all of the bias and value-laden judgments that plague the current system. If we take a proven practice (higher order questions engage students in more complex thinking), and track the fidelity of implementation (what is the level of questions the teacher is asking) along with the effectiveness of the practice in this specific classroom (rate and level of student responses) - we'll have a solid picture of what is happening. That's the basis for effective change.
Thanks for the comment. The idea seems sound to me.
Post a Comment