by Blair Howard
Beyond academics and sports programs, there are many important issues facing our school district; among them, implementing the national Common Core standards, academic program management, and, most importantly, providing safe, challenging, inclusive learning environments for all students. However, this month’s column will focus on a little discussed topic that has a profound effect on every aspect of district business: The relationship of the district as an employer to those who do the work of the district.
There are numerous roles and ways that employees of district interact with children and the community. Basically, a district employee can be broken down into one of three categories: classified, certificated, and administrative staff. District employees who are certificated or classified staff work under collectively bargained contracts that govern most aspects of their work.
The Davis Teachers Association is the sole legal representative of the certificated staff. Our members include classroom teachers, subject specialists, psychologists, special education teachers, counselors, nurses, and speech therapists. As a community member, you may not have considered the connection between your student and our contract. Simply put, the contract that DTA negotiates governs the conditions under which these educators work, and where these people work is where your student learns.
Our contract directly affects student learning. It covers everything from class size, special education caseloads, and school hours to the evaluations of educators to ensure that they are serving the students at a high level. Our contract also ensures a safe learning environment for both students and educators, as well as the professional development that enhances our teachers skills and knowledge.
As with any document, the contract is only as strong as the specific language in it. Some of the language in our contract is clear and strong, while other language is vague and weak. A central contractual issue for DTA is class sizes and caseloads. This is an important concern for educators and parents as the number of students in each class shapes our ability to educate each student.
Currently our contract says that the district will “endeavor” to keep class sizes down. To secondary teachers, this translates into 160 students for their five classes, for an average of 32 students per class. At an elementary school level, teachers work with an average of 29 children per class. As you can tell, the word “endeavor” is weak. When the DTA tries to hold class sizes down, the contract does not compel the district to do much. You can judge by the average class sizes how hard they are trying. DTA is also concerned about large imbalances in classes that allow for a teacher to have a class of 40 one period to be balanced with having a class of 24 another period. The teaching in a class of 24 is very different than in a class of 40, and so is the learning.
The dynamics are also similar for counselors who have had to fight for manageable ratios of students so that they can really get to know kids and provide them a high level of individualized services. Yet, counselors do not have a defined ratio of students in the contract. In fact, their ratios change from year to year, and DTA must work with the district to maintain workable caseloads for counselors.
Another group of certificated staff who do not have well-defined limits is special education teachers. These teachers are charged with managing a number of students who not only have varying levels of needs, but all students require an intense amount of paperwork. For special education teachers, the contract contains outdated language that is unenforceable. As a result, the time and resources of these teachers are stretched thin, as they struggle to serve all of their students effectively. Sometimes, this means that work falls to para-educators who though hard working, are not the specially trained teachers that the students need to modify their work appropriately.
This is not to say that the class sizes educators deal with are always unbalanced or over but the contract is the bedrock of our working conditions and the students learning conditions. Our contract should reflect the best practices that create optimal environments for student learning so that educators can be as effective as possible with the students they serve. DTA has tried to strengthen the language in the contract regarding class sizes, only to be met with stiff resistance from a district that wants more flexibility to load classes how they choose, which is not always what is best for students and educators. Community support for strong language to ensure manageable class sizes may be something that moves the district to change their perspective on this issue and ensure manageable class sizes and caseloads for all educators.
Blair Howard is the current President of the Davis Teacher’s Association. This is the first of what will be a monthly column from DTA – starting next month it will be every first Tuesday of the month.
Thanks Blair I appreciate you writing this piece and I appreciate your prospective.
While I understand the districts need to stay flexible when it comes to class sizes, I too wish a more strongly worded policy could be put into place.
When they spoke on this issue last week Clark Bryant stated that next year the average class sizes for K-3 will be 25. As I understand it there is no cap on individual class sizes. So one Kindergarten classroom could have 20 students and another could have 30, and this would meet the district’s class size policy? (Extreme example but I use to clarify my question and point out potential flaws in basing class sizes on average numbers rather then actual numbers).
Thank you for your positive words. You are correct that K-3 will be down to about 25, but this is only an average on each site. There can be imbalances between classes but we hope that these imbalances are minimal. This aims to satisfy the state mandate to move to 24 students in each class or else they lose funding.
You are an unelected special interest Blair. You do not represent the interests of the children of Davis. Your goal and role is to maximize the extraction of dollars from Davis residents that go to teacher salaries.
We have an elected school board that decides matters of educational policy.
I view this as a personal attack on Mr. Blair, and thus not appropriate for this site.
I don’t think it is okay to make personal statements regarding Mr. Blair’s motives. If you have specific union policies or practices you disagree with go after those.
I agree. We need to have a public discussion, but questioning motives tends to stop the discussion. No need to do that.
LOL Pot? Kettle?
The job of a union leader is to maximize salaries for the members of the union. If you think this is a personal attack, then please correct me as to what the purpose of a union really is.
Actually I would say he is an elected leader of a teacher’s union. However, I would also state that rather than question motives, let’s have a discussion about educational policy. If you disagree, make your argument. At the very least the teacher’s are a stake holder in that discussion.
J.R.: Your goal and role is to maximize the extraction of dollars from Davis residents that go to teacher salaries.
So you think teachers only went into this profession for the money?
How else would you propose to get organized feedback on classroom and education conditions?
Not at all. Many teachers are fine human beings with a dedication to education.
But a teachers union is only there to get more money for teachers. Don’t confuse teachers with the CTA, which generally works agains the interest of students.
If the CTA weren’t around, then it would be another organization. Teachers will get together to compare notes and talk about ideas and classroom conditions. That’s how the next union would start. It’s a constitutional right do so.
J.R.: You do not represent the interests of the children of Davis.
Also, the tone and implication that comes across in this statement, to me, is akin to telling Mr. Blair and other teachers that they are not professional enough to be able to make autonomous decisions about how to teach children in their classroom.
You seem to be bothered by the fact that unions exist to extract more money for their members from employers. This is generally recognized, but perhaps we should all pretend that unions gladly forgo wage increases for the general welfare of the community.
In fact, the CTA is even worse than most unions. They let their own junior members here in Davis get laid off and lose their jobs in preference to holding the line on wage increases.
J.R. sounds like he is simply restating simply anti-union rhetoric. I did not mention compensation in the article, I talked about the learning conditions of the students, which is the number one concern of myself and educators throughout the district and state. My goal is to aid in a well functioning system by representing the interests of educators. Also, our teachers are taxpayers, many in the city of Davis. Many people seem to forget that we are professionals and members of the community.
No, I am not “simply restating simply anti-union rhetoric.”, whatever that means.
I am making a point that the school board is elected to make educational policy, and employs a superintendent and principals to implement that policy. Teachers are employees who do not set policy, though they have the key role in education. The union exists primarily to extract funds for its bosses, and secondarily to get greater pay for its members.
Interestingly enough in Wisconsin, when given a choice, droves of teachers left the teachers unions. I hope that membership becomes voluntary here in Davis some day. Today a teacher is forced to pay the union for representation even if they think that the union is not working in their interest.
i JR,
As a junior teacher, who has been laid off every year of my teaching career, I have to correct your erroneous statement that the teacher’s union “lets” me get laid off. In fact, the school district lays me off, not the teacher’s union. I’m guessing that tens of thousands of junior teachers in the state have received pink slips since the economic downturn in 2008. To the contrary of your statement, I , and every other pink slipped teacher, received representation from the union every time I have been laid off. At no point were teachers laid off because they union was holding out for a pay raise. In fact, over and over again, across the state- union members voted for furlough days and pay decreases to help school districts make ends meet.
Not to mention that some of the people getting laid off during the worst years were people who had been teaching in districts for ten years-so they were hardly “junior teachers”. The fact that so many of us got laid off points to systemic problems in how the state funds schools-not the overarching power of the union.
I also think you missed the point of this article-which was entirely focused on student learning conditions. Unless you think that have forty students in a classroom wouldn’t impact their learning?
I don’t know what you want from teachers- or why you seem to believe that teachers are being selfish or letting down the community when we negotiate a living wage. Do you hold firefighters to the same standard?
The union contract includes mandates to favor teacher seniority over other factors like capability. So, yes, it is the union that is responsible for junior teachers being laid off.
Without the union labor contract and the employment situation changed to “at will”, a more senior teacher would tend to have more experience and more capability and should be favored… however, not all. And so then a junior teacher demonstrating a lot of talent would be retained over a more senior teacher demonstrating less capability.
That is the way it works in the private-sector. And the net result is a stronger and more capable workforce.
Unions labor contracts tend to promote performance mediocrity by favoring seniority over almost all other factors.
There is that saying “what gets measured gets done.” So if you measure seniority, seniority is what you get.
I don’t know what you want from teachers- or why you seem to believe that teachers are being selfish or letting down the community when we negotiate a living wage. Do you hold firefighters to the same standard?
The best teachers are underpaid based on their capability to provide a high-quality education service. However, they are largely unable to provide that high service as the public school system is designed. So, they are adequately compensated, IMO.
The rest of teachers are overpaid with factoring total compensation and hours worked per year compared to other professional jobs… again, based on the quality of service they deliver that is constrained by the system they work in.
Reform the system so that it targets and achieves consistent excellence in outcomes, and then many more teachers are underpaid given the value of the service they would provide students and society in general.
All Davis firefighters are overpaid. Most are grossly overpaid. The job should pay 2/3 the wages and 1/2 the benefits and there would still be lines of qualified candidates stretching several blocks to apply for job openings.
Blair,
Thanks for taking the time (and committing to contribute more time) to let us know what is going on from the perspective of the DTA.
When you wrote:
“To secondary teachers, this translates into 160 students for their five classes, for an average of 32 students per class. At an elementary school level, teachers work with an average of 29 children per class.”
I assume that 29 and 32 are the “average” number of students “enrolled” in each class. In the restaurant industry and hotel industry they keep detailed records of the number of tables and rooms “occupied” each day. Does the school district keep track of the percentage of desks actually “occupied” on an average day (a typical small hotel with 29 to 32 rooms will be lucky to have 20 to 23 rooms actually occupied on an average day).
I’m also wondering if the DTA keeps track of the range we have in standard (not counting special ed or other special classes) elementary and high school class sizes. Are they all right around 29 and 32 or do some have 20 and others have 40 kids?
Actually the numbers are numbers that if any class goes over, the teacher can ask for mitigations to help deal with the overage. Our contract discusses this process, but as with everything, sometimes the process works out and sometimes it doesn’t. Some teachers unfortunately are not aware of class limits and so we don’t always hear about them. As far as tracking the district does not monitor the daily class loads, only at certain points, since most of the time they are fairly stable. About other classes, they are usually lower and since the loads are not based on averages, but the total number assigned to a teacher. There are sometimes far differences in class sizes between teachers or within the classes for one teacher.
This is all so foreign to me with respect to modern professional employee management. Striving to adequately document job requirements within a contract would be an effort in futility, and likely result in frustration and resentment from both employee and employer. It would also serve to strangle future creativity and dynamism.
With such a detailed contract, labor says “I don’t need to do that since it is not in the contract.”… and management says “I can’t ask labor to do that since it is not in the contract.”
What if “that” is essential for school peak performance? What if “that” is something that would benefit the students?
What, when, how, where, and who… these should all be variables that are constantly adjusted based on the needs, challenges and opportunities. Instead of attempting to document all of this in the contract, the contract should refer to the Standards Of Operation (SOP), and cover the process by which that document gets reviewed and updated.
It is aggravating to me that in the business of education where we expect the students to be constantly learning and improving, we would not also have a corresponding view that that the employees of the school are also responsible for constantly learning and improving. The focus should be the needs of the students. If those student needs result in a some undesired change to the working conditions or labor characteristics of the school employees… well then too bad, so sad. What we need are teachers that get excited about the challenges and the changes, not those that complain and demand someone nail down what exactly they have to do.
The key here is to develop the set of measures that gauge the success or failure of the school, and then focus the entire workforce on that. The what, when, how, where, and who should be subordinate to those measures. For example, if the goals are not being met, then changes will be required.
And when the goals are met and exceeded, the employees of the school needs to be recognized and rewarded.
Labor contracts are the antithesis of the high performing organization. As the recent UAW rejection in a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga tells us, more people are starting to understand this.
“Labor contracts are the antithesis of the high performing organization.”
i think you make an error here when you believe that everyone is motivated by money.
That is not my point at all. I know that motivation for pay falls to the forth position unless there is a belief/feeling that the job is underpaid.
A high performing organization requires a direct engagement from employees toward the strategic goals and mission of the organization. Labor contracts are an impediment to that. They put up a wall between labor and management. They set the expectation that everything will be nailed down in advance in a detailed statement of work. They are not conducive to the modern “learning organization” that is the recognized standard for excellence.
My employees are like constantly moving chess pieces… we are always attacking opportunities to do a better job by changing our processes, our approaches, our mindsets, our paradigms, our job descriptions, our roles, etc., etc., etc.,… Outside of the inflexible regulations we must comply with, everything else is open for debate and change as we all see fit.
If all the jobs my employees did were locked into a detailed labor contract, I would be out of business for failing to meet the high expectations of my customers.
Davis Progressive wrote:
> i think you make an error here when you believe that
> everyone is motivated by money.
It is true that “everyone” is not motivated by money, but in the past 100 years there has not been a single time teachers have gone on strike in the US when they were NOT asking for MORE money…
Frankly: The key here is to develop the set of measures that gauge the success or failure of the school, and then focus the entire workforce on that.
You promised a Vanguard article that would address how to measure, among other things, empathy, creativity, critical thinking, character, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, reliability, enthusiasm, self-awareness, self-discipline, leadership, civic-mindedness, courage, compassion, resourcefulness, sense of beauty, sense of wonder, honesty, integrity, artistry, the ability to identify and respond to social cues, self-esteem, and a sense of belonging.
Perhaps you can provide that essay soon so as to advance the discussion a little more productively?
Frankly: It is aggravating to me that in the business of education where we expect the students to be constantly learning and improving, we would not also have a corresponding view that that the employees of the school are also responsible for constantly learning and improving.
Part of this is connected professional development programs. I think teachers appreciate meaningful professional development classes, seminars, and activities, but often such efforts get subsumed in budget cuts and adding responsibilities to teachers (for instance, increasing class sizes).
The other part of this involves taking college level course work, incentivized in the salary scale.
wdf1: I am working on it, but have been a bit short on time.
Professional development is not worth much to the organization if it is not directly linked to the performance of the organization.
It seems to me that you prefer no defined targets of outcomes; only some amorphous blob of accomplishment as defined by anyone possessing academic credentials.
And for the educator, the credentials will do. The more the better.
Am I wrong?
Getting back to this point about labor contracts dictating so many details…
In software development we used to try and collect all the requirements up front to create that perfect specification and design. In complex systems this approach meant many months of work before any results could be realized, and it rarely resulted in a perfect system, and ofter resulted in a mess. Just check the history of failed multimillion dollar government IT projects.
The system development discipline long ago advanced to RAD (Rapid Application Development) and Agile methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development). The Agile method provides an iterative approach, and encourages rapid and flexible response to change
From an organizational perspective, any significant system development project would need to be linked to the organizational strategic and tactical planning and management process. The reason?… it is because it is easy to lose sight of the reasons and objectives for actually designing and implementing a new system and the ongoing changes.
RAD and Agile methods are generally just part of a larger “learning organization” framework.
A detailed labor contract does not work here. And when you look at the failure of the federal government to produce a working website for Obamacare, you can easily see how unionized labor creates a sub-optimal performing organization.
Education needs to become much more agile. Labor contracts are a huge impediment to that.
Frankly: And for the educator, the credentials will do. The more the better.
Am I wrong?
I think a credential is a start. Having sat through many college courses, one thing that strikes me is that college professors sometimes don’t have much self awareness for how they put across their information. I think my grade school teachers, on the whole, were better in this area. I think some courses in pedagogy are helpful.
If one teaches, do you think it is helpful to be reminded of what it’s like to be a student from time to time, interacting with a teacher from the other side?
Professional development is not worth much to the organization if it is not directly linked to the performance of the organization.
I can agree with that. If you think a teacher taking classes is insufficient professional development, then what do you suggest?
I suggest that just getting a masters degree is not professional development. Professional development is any and all development that results in demonstrated improvement in the following performance and performance-enhancing behaviors:
empathy, creativity, critical thinking, character, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, reliability, enthusiasm, self-awareness, self-discipline, leadership, civic-mindedness, courage, compassion, resourcefulness, sense of beauty, sense of wonder, honesty, integrity, artistry, the ability to identify and respond to social cues, self-esteem, and a sense of belonging.
And others.
Assuming these things actually help improve the education outcomes for students.
Why wouldn’t a master’s degree do any of those things? My master’s degree taught me research methods which improved my creativity and critical thinking among other things.
I should have worded that point better.
What I was trying to say is that we should not just consider that the teacher is worth more and developed more having acquired a masters degree. Today that and seniority is used as the ONLY measure of worth, and that is absurd. I have hired “experienced” PHDs that ended up less valuable employees than people with significant lesser academic credentials and different experience for the same job.
A masters degree may in fact result in a better developed teacher, but then maybe not. It depends on the teacher, the school, the needs of the students, etc.
Frankly: I suggest that just getting a masters degree is not professional development.
Why do you think that?
In the field of science, a typical graduate degree (M.S., PhD) involves carrying out real world science research. Wouldn’t carrying out real world science research lead one to be a better science teacher?
A college degree can be a subset of, or a component of, professional development.
From Wikipedia: Professional development encompasses all types of facilitated learning opportunities, ranging from college degrees to formal coursework, conferences and informal learning opportunities situated in practice. It has been described as intensive and collaborative, ideally incorporating an evaluative stage.[1] There are a variety of approaches to professional development, including consultation, coaching, communities of practice, lesson study, mentoring, reflective supervision and technical assistance.
Something like this model is needed for grades 11 and 12, and parts of this model should be replicated beginning in middle school.
http://www.yearup.org/
I understand your general criticisms of contracts and the role of labor in enforcing those contracts. I disagree that contracts get in the way of a functioning enterprise. In many areas the district and association agree on the best practice and try to make the contract reflect that. A couple of years ago we updated some language and made some charts to reflect the evaluation process because some administrators and some teachers were having a hard time effectively evaluating. It was productive and has helped in the evaluation of educators.
Sometimes the contract needs to catch up but in the mean time, if the practice works for people, we do it. When we disagree, it is as professionals who should have a voice in how they do their job. The contract is really there for the outliers, both administrators and educators, who can’t follow best practices. What we are asking here is that the contract reflect that. For example the contract does not have a limit for PE teachers. Should we assume the best practice is to just load up PE classes until they are unsafe? Of course not.
I also would have folks think about education without contracts, where everyone is at the whim of supervisors, hierarchies, and data. Some systems would function, then fall apart, there would be abuses and shirking of responsibility.
And as for the comment on VW, if you look at the role of labor unions in Germany, it is truly something to envy and emulate, which is what VW was trying to do in Tennessee. Germany has been able to maintain its leadership in global manufacturing because of the intimate role in the decision making that workers have. There are just some people who can not accept that the people actually doing the work are the ones who should have the most say in how it is done.
Blair – Thanks for the follow up. I admit that a big part of my problem with labor contracts is simply my inexperience dealing with them. I do have to consider that there are things I do not know. However, I have a lot of management experience and I cannot connect the dots for how I would lead an organization to a level of service excellence and peak performance without having the ability to deal with each employee individually as an “at will” employee-to-employer employment agreement.
I am 100% behind the need to identify best-practices… and I certain see the profession of teaching as being a bit more per-determined than say are technical professional roles that have to deal with constantly shifting skill needs.
But I think this process of attempting to document so much of the job conditions and best practices in the contract is part of the contributing factors toward our public schools failing to keep up with the needs of our kids. Our kids get and send more information in a day from that 3″ screen they carry around with them than they do in a week from many teachers that lack the ability to engage students because they are stuck in “best practices” that are really prehistoric.
Frankly,
I think you’re forgetting that teachers are dealing with people, not a product. Students, particularly in high school, make decisions every day that teachers, and really even their parents, have no control over. There is no one system of teaching that works because students have different learning styles, emotional and social needs and goals for their lives that often don’t include college. I’m not even talking about the at risk population-kids that are homeless, have food insecurity, have parents at risk for deportation, deal with violence in their lives, a parent in jail- have to care for young children or grandparents- these issues tend to make coming to school and learning difficult. Given the reality of this, I am uncertain how not having a teacher contract would in some way ameliorate these conditions. Or how labeling their school-for many students-their place of safety-a “failure” really helps anybody at all.
The success of programs like Year up can’t be entirely replicated in middle school, because their success is in part based on the fact that they can be highly selective. The mission of public education is not just to educate the best and the brightest or even just the motivated, it’s to educate every child. Do high school students and middle students always care or see a value in their education? Absolutely not. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t receive one.
As the other points of teachers not doing things to help students because their jobs are nailed down in a contract-that really hasn’t been my experience. Most people that teach that I know work extra hours, and do things outside the scope of their contract because they care about their students.
I’m also not really sure what you mean by “educational outcomes” if all of the qualities of leading and interesting and fulfilling life somehow pale into comparison of scoring well on a state mandated test.
I think you’re forgetting that teachers are dealing with people, not a product.
Cat – no I am not. I am talking about private sector business that provides service.
There is no one system of teaching that works because students have different learning styles, emotional and social needs and goals for their lives that often don’t include college.
Exactly. Google “school of one”.
The mission of public education is not just to educate the best and the brightest or even just the motivated, it’s to educate every child.
Absolutely. But the template learner model has been narrowing for the last 30-40 years. The public school system has become less effective educating every child at the very time that our economy demands more highly-educated workers.
The success of programs like Year up can’t be entirely replicated in middle school, because their success is in part based on the fact that they can be highly selective.
Absolutely, but these are troubled inner city kids… the kind that are routinely failed by the public school systems. These are not the best and brightest with two highly educated parents and strong family income… you know the standard for Davis. The public schools are selective too. Just ask kids why they don’t play sports or in the band or take upper division math beyond the basic minimum. Just ask kids why they drop out. Or learn to dislike learning in general because of their public school experience.
As the other points of teachers not doing things to help students because their jobs are nailed down in a contract-that really hasn’t been my experience. Most people that teach that I know work extra hours, and do things outside the scope of their contract because they care about their students.
I know many teachers work outside their contract and do more than the minimum requirement. It is not those teachers that are the problem, it is the system and the population of bad and mediocre teachers. It is the lack of innovation. It is the lack of use of technology. It is the lack of teacher development. it is the lack of student engagement. It is the lack of a constantly improving and constantly changing business of education to meet the constantly changing economy and society. It is political bias and way too much effort and cost to create someone else s clone of a “model good citizen”, instead of focusing on just the life skills the kid will need to successfully launch to a happy and prosperous life.
I think we over-pay teachers in general for the quality of the service we get from public education. I think many teachers are worth far more… but the system will have to be drastically changed for those teachers to be able to deliver the value that justifies that higher pay. It is the system that is holding them back. It is the system that demand some superficial concept of fairness and job security over excellence and peek performance.
Teaching is performing, and there are very, very, very few Oscars that go out to public school teachers these days.
Frankly: Exactly. Google “school of one”.
I did as you said and ran into these articles:
Former NYC Chancellor Joel Klein’s highly touted School of One math project dropped by 2 of 3 schools in pilot program
A teacher writes about his visit to School of One program in NYC:
….
Here is a link to the some demographic data:
http://djusd-ca.schoolloop.com/resource/resources?d=x&id=1368005138794&group_id=1356617245223
And there is actually an extreme example worse then the hypothetical one I made:
Last May a first grade class at Willet had 31 students, and a first grade class at Montgomery had 18.
Thanks for the article, Blair. I’ll look forward to more.
I assume the resistance results from budget considerations. Without knowing more about what the DTA wants and what fiscal impact it would have, it’s hard to assess how reasonable the respective positions are. If the pie is only so big, and the DTA contract position would cost the district more money, then I guess an outsider would ask ‘what is the money going to be taken away from in order to achieve those class sizes’?
An essay by a math teacher at Washington, D.C.’s historic Dunbar High School:
Crunching Test Scores Isn’t Enough to Educate Our Kids
(Kaya Henderson is Michelle Rhee’s successor in the DC public schools. Henderson actually kept most of Rhee’s policies in place after she resigned.)
….
wdf1 – I think you need to find other references other than old-school teachers, and the teacher-union-friendly successor to Michele Rhee.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2012/09/13/the-counterproductive-attack-on-nycs-school-of-one/
http://www.amplify.com/
But I really laugh at this constant barrage of criticism from the old education establishment that something as complicated as technology to revolutionize education isn’t working while most of the same people leveling the criticism are beside themselves with demand that we continue to support Barak Obam’s totally cluster-effed attempt to reform the health insurance industry.
New York screwed up making this a huge project role out. It should have been an incremental role out with Agile methods to improve and refine the system and process toward a goal of excellence.
But why are we surprised that the education establishment screwed this up too? They should take a page out of the Obamacare lessons and turn it over to the private sector to do it right.
Frankly: I think you need to find other references other than old-school teachers, and the teacher-union-friendly successor to Michele Rhee.
Please explain why you think Michelle Rhee’s successor, Kaya Henderson, is teacher-union friendly.
In all of this discussion about education and various reform programs, I am struck by your tendency to disparage the experience of teachers. David Tansey, the author of the article doesn’t appear to be that old or to have taught that long (or is 5 year’s teaching experience too old in current reformist doctrine?). Did you actually read the article? I thought he made some points that you would have agreed with.
I don’t disparage the experience of teachers, but I don’t respond well to their reliable and almost instant criticism of others attempting to help improve the system and outcomes.
I don’t like critics that are not part of the solution.
I really don’t like critics that are part of the problem.
And because I have absolute, 100% confidence that these new methods would result in significant improvements if adopted and supported in a proper fashion, I don’t respond will to the critics.
Lead, follow or get out of the way.
If it is not broke, then don’t fix it. If it is broke, then either participate in the fixing or leave alone those that are trying to fix it.
Education is a broken system. If not School-of-One, then what is the fix?
The teachers unions and those that defend the teachers unions have the same problem as the GOP these days…. everything is negative. There is no strong push for a positive vision… nothing compelling to lock onto other than “the other guy is more wrong than me.”
That won’t get it done.
And, yes, I am easily irritated by those with only criticism and no solutions. Especially those that are insiders.
The teachers unions spent to defeat Andrian Fenty primarily because the D.C. schools Chancellor, Rhee, she did what we would all demand… fire poorly performing school employees… and put in the union-friendly replacement who appointed Kaya Hendserson… an insider and teacher. And true to form, Ms. Henderson is working with the old guard to kill D.C. vouchers and charter schools and instead find ways to spend more money on the status quo.
A somewhat balanced analysis of the situation with School of One in New York: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2012/09/13/the-counterproductive-attack-on-nycs-school-of-one/
Michelle Rhee brought a lot of her problems on herself with her approach. She seemed to invite confrontation, which has served her well as she transitions into a consultant’s role popular among conservatives. But if you want to effect change, you do so in a collaborative process. From every thing I’ve read, that wasn’t her style.
This is a far too simplistic statement. In Davis, for example, our schools work very well for most kids, and there are options for those who don’t fit the usual template. In general, at least in California, many — perhaps most — schools are functioning well, most kids in most schools do well. The problem is under-performing schools, and under-performing students: how you make things work for them without harming the systems that are functioning well for the other students.
My expectations are higher. I want our education system to be excellent. The best system in the world. The best system possible to ensure the most student possible become economically self-sufficient and life-satisfied adults.
“working well for most kids” is another definition of failure in my book. What is most? 51%? Seriously, take a school with 2000 students and you are satisfied that the school does not work well for 980 of those students?
Schools should work well for at least 90% of the students with a goal of working well for 100% of the students.
Yes, of course they should. But if they are working well for 90% of students (realizing this was an arbitrary number that I won’t hold you to), then they aren’t broken, the system isn’t in need of major overhaul. Reforms should be directed at the 10%.
So do I. Please don’t fill your replies with this kind of piffle, seeming to imply that you have higher standards than we do.
It is not working well for 90%. It is working for maybe 70% at the most. In Woodland it is probably working well for 50% or maybe 60%. But for a different cross-section of students.
It is broken.
And my standards apparently are higher than yours. Otherwise you would demonstrate more concern for the kids that are not served well by the school. What I see is “I made it work for my kids, so the rest of you must be too stupid to worry about.”
No, once again you are imputing stuff on me that I didn’t say. One of your worst and most persistent habits on the Vanguard. You weren’t “too stupid,” Frankly. You just chose not to get involved in your kids’ education. We have established that many times.
Your standards are demonstrably NOT higher than mine. Why? Because when my kids had trouble, I intervened and made sure the system had an appropriate place for them. You didn’t. So obviously your standards, supposedly high, didn’t extend to making sure the kids that count in your life got best results from DJUSD.
Your 90%, 70%, 50%, 60% numbers are not based on anything at all. But nevertheless: if a school is doing well for a large percentage of the students, then the programs that are working for them should not be harmed as we implement changes. We should focus on those who need better service. Innovative programs can target them.
Frankly: The teachers unions spent to defeat Andrian Fenty primarily because the D.C. schools Chancellor, Rhee, she did what we would all demand… fire poorly performing school employees… and put in the union-friendly replacement who appointed Kaya Hendserson… an insider and teacher. And true to form, Ms. Henderson is working with the old guard to kill D.C. vouchers and charter schools and instead find ways to spend more money on the status quo.
I’ll have to ask you for some citation to support your statements, because it seems like you really didn’t do your homework. Henderson does not come across as abrasive and high profile as Rhee, but she has continued many of her policies. I have another couple of citations if you think this one isn’t enough. But I look forward to understanding what you read to support your world view on this.
Kaya Henderson Up Close
….
See below
wdf1: While my previous post awaits approval from the moderator for reasons I can’t understand, here is another thing to read that covers what I believe to be the much more effective model that teachers unions would tend to block http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_learning
There is a term “disruptive innovation”. It is similar to the concept of “creative destruction” which is a necessary component of a working capitalist system. What I see and hear in you is a sort of plea to retain most of the legacy trappings of the education system while we work to tweak it. That just will not work in my opinion. What we need is to destruct and reconstruct, to disrupt and reform. There are just too many people with a vested interest to protect the status quo to be successful making the necessary changes. And I see this as one of our most urgent public policy goals/needs. Every day there are kids failed by our crappy schools and these kids effectively have their economic lives destroyed as a result. We should demand nothing less than excellence. Yet, we get mediocre at best, and much of it is just plain crappy. How can we allow this? How can we talk about children and people suffering due to poverty, and then protect a system that ensures a high percentage of people will stuck in poverty because of a crappy education experience?
We need a sense of urgency for education excellence. And the bar for excellence is on a slope steeply upward as our world becomes more advanced and technical… and the economy is increasingly global. Our education system needs to be completely re-thought, re-designed, constantly measured and constantly improved. It needs to be our most successful industry… where the most innovation and creativity is applied.
And instead we are stuck on tradition. We are afraid to let go because of what we already think we know. We are afraid that we will become obsolete in the new paradigm. And in our blocking and denying and resisting… we will surely become obsolete anyway… but we will also be isolated.
Frankly: What I see and hear in you is a sort of plea to retain most of the legacy trappings of the education system while we work to tweak it.
I am cynical of much that is touted as education reform in politics. I feel like it is something co-opted for political purposes that often don’t appear to have been well thought-out in practice. That they are often pushed by private businesses (notably textbook & standardized test publishers) that are a little more concerned with making their bottom line than in a successful and durable education product (someone needs push having open-source online wiki-type textbooks, paperless and free for everyone to use; who would need publishers then?).
I cannot remember a time in my life (my news and current affairs awareness goes back to the mid-70’s) when the prevailing narrative wasn’t “our schools suck, we need to reform quickly or else American society will decline.” I have watched New Math, Whole Language, Phonics, “A Nation at Risk”, No Child Left Behind, vouchers, charter schools, Common Core. After awhile it all seems like “flavor of the month” and, on the whole, little in the way of proven results.
You are cynical of reform ideas.
I am cynical of the status quo.
Here is the problem.
Responding to your cynicism means that we don’t advance much and maybe not at all. And based on the trends we see, it is highly likely that we will continue to decline.
Responding to my cynicism, what it the worst that could happen? The old guard in this town support Spanish Immersion before there was much real proof that it would result in benefits, and that it would not result in problems for those students. I was and still am a bit cynical about that since I know some kids that struggled all through their Davis school experience even though they developed the ability to speak and understand more Spanish than some other kids that took the traditional route.
What is the difference?
The difference as I see it was that Spanish Immersion did not pose any risk of a reduction in union head count. In fact, it actually resulted in increased union head count.
So please forgive me if I see your and others’ cynicism of new methods as nothing more than protection of the education establishment as primarily a jobs program for adults.
I have a different view that is based on American innovation and ingenuity. We go to the moon. We invent complete new industries from the ground floor because people don’t accept the views of cynics and critics. If we really want to do something, we will find a way to get it done.
What I see is a well organized and well orchestrated brain trust and PR engine that is working harder and harder to block the winds of change… those winds are going to win eventually. I know they are. The tragedy will be all those kids that would of otherwise been saved had not the cynics and critics been so successful blocking reform for so many years.
The difference is that the parents were happy with the outcomes and pressured the school board to continue increasing the program. Same with GATE. We have an engaged and opinionated parent-electorate here. And DJUSD is responsive to that. I seriously doubt that at any time, anywhere in the process, did a single person say ‘let’s do this because it increases the union membership’. They did it because the parents saw results that they liked and clamored for more.
Just imagine if they tried to scale back SI or GATE right now. Or ever.
You just ignored the point that the school district supported and pushed this even though there was not much proof that it would not result in problems.
So wdf1 supported Spanish Immersion without much proof, but he is cynical of other new methods.
There are a lot of parents clamoring for vouchers in districts with bad schools. Do you support vouchers Don because the parents are demanding them like they demanded Spanish Immersion?
As I’ve said many times before, I do not support vouchers because they take money out of the public schools. I support charter schools, innovative programs, individualized learning, home schooling as a choice, and whatever else any school district wants to try.
Well then, that shoots your previous assertions full of holes then Don, because like in D.C. 79% of parents want vouchers.
So then how do you explain the incongruity of your two positions… one, SI was a good thing because SOME parents pushed it, but vouchers are a bag thing even though MOST parents want it?
It is clear… you only defend school change that doe not threaten the status quo union job count.
I do not care at all about unions. Whether they exist, whether a program increases or decreases union membership. You are absolutely, irrationally fixated on unions. It is an obsession that makes it hard to have a rational discussion with you about education. I do not want tax dollars taken away from the public schools to go to private schools. Thus I oppose vouchers.
I didn’t say, by the way, that SI ‘was a good thing’. I explained why DJUSD allowed and expanded it. They were responsive to the parents who wanted an innovative program in the public schools. This is not an incongruity of my position. I am very open to innovation in the public school system.
Parents who want their children to go to private schools are welcome to send them to private schools. They are also welcome to try to improve the public schools, push for change, encourage innovative programs, set up charter schools. Any and all of that is just fine with me. I think what DeBlasio is doing in New York regarding the charter schools is a travesty, and that he will come to regret it. That is a clear instance of acting on behalf of the unions that supported him, and I oppose it.
Don Shor: I think what DeBlasio is doing in New York regarding the charter schools is a travesty, and that he will come to regret it. That is a clear instance of acting on behalf of the unions that supported him, and I oppose it.
I think there is very good evidence that many of the privately run NYC charter schools are cherry-picking their students — fewer ELL students, fewer special ed students, high dropout rates, high rates of disciplinary action. All those students get pushed to a lower-funded public school system. Sure, the charters serve low-income students, so there is the justification of “victory”.
Also a much higher turnover rate among teachers in the charter system.
The exclusive operating measure is standardized test scores in math & English. So Eva Moskowitz et al. will claim superior standardized test scores, but if the goal is to serve everyone w/ public money, then that is questionable.
It is creating a segregated system between “template” learners in a better funded charter school system and “non-template” learners (to use Frankly’s parlance) in the public school system. Kind of like Brave New World.
My view is that if tax-payer money is to be used for charter schools, then there should be an equivalent threshold of equal access to a charter school system as to a public school system.
I have a busy day today, but can post plenty of material this evening, if desired.
“I think there is very good evidence that many of the privately run NYC charter schools are cherry-picking their students — fewer ELL students, fewer special ed students, high dropout rates, high rates of disciplinary action. All those students get pushed to a lower-funded public school system. Sure, the charters serve low-income students, so there is the justification of “victory”.
wdf1: Go back and revisit your repeated assertions that poverty is to blame for so many crappy public school outcomes and then come back to this post of yours. There is such incongruity in your positions on this I am sure you have just dug in your heels in stubborn resolve to protect unionized teacher jobs at all costs to the kids. I think your heart and head might not be in the right place as it relates to education.
Stop and think about this. You are a child of an impoverished, but determined, inner city family that has to go to a crappy school that cannot unsure your safety and is highly likely to fail to adequately engage you and educate you. You have a lottery system that is your only hope to escape that crappy circumstance. Now, wdf1 just took that hope away because he is concerned that the charter schools you would otherwise attend are not loading up on enough other troubled students.
This type of thinking really pisses me off. Who the hell are we to destroy the opportunities for these kids and lock them into a school that will likely destroy their life just because we adults don’t think the charter schools and the public schools are on a level playing field? Who the hell cares about a level playing field when it comes to the kids? You are basically making a case that it is okay to destroy the hopes and opportunities for a population of kids just because it does not look fair to you. Shame on you. Shame on anyone that thinks this way.
Before the charter schools and the lottery, the public schools had all the money and all they could do is make for crappier schools. So you don’t want them to lose any money because you are afraid of what?
See below
Frankly: school district supported and pushed this
That’s not how SI founders remember things.
I thought it was initiated by parents. It wasn’t pushed by the district, that’s for sure.
Frankly: The old guard in this town support Spanish Immersion before there was much real proof that it would result in benefits, and that it would not result in problems for those students.
The academic and experimental basis (“proof”) for Spanish Immersion came from immersion schools in Canada, as explained to me by someone who was around when SI started in Davis.
Frankly: Responding to my cynicism, what it the worst that could happen?
We waste money, thoughtlessly, and forget what was actually working in the first place because you wanted to “tear it all down,” every last brick. We have a lack of stability, and even more folks become cynical.
I would modify my comment to say specifically that I have seen very positive progress made to include students with disabilities (both physical and cognitive/mental) in the public schools system. From my public school experience, I only remember one student in a wheel chair, and no students w/ autism or autism spectrum that I could tell.
Before this blog article gets too old and inactive, I want to thank Mr. Howard and his colleagues for establishing a policy of communicating their thoughts here on the Vanguard. If I have any specific criticism of teachers’ unions, it is that they haven’t done an adequate job of advocating to the public. Most of the dialog and communications I have observed with teachers’ unions has taken place with the administration and school board (mostly in closed sessions), or with state legislatures.
Especially in Davis, where it is a demonstrated fact the community will go out of its way to support the schools compared to many other communities, I think parents and community members appreciate knowing where DTA is coming from. You will always have detractors, but on the whole I think you gain more respect and appreciation for acknowledging the community’s interest in public education.
I agree with wdf1 here. The teachers unions are too closed in terms of communication with the general public. It gives the impression of there being all closed door politics-for-money horse trading. The DTA can set a new standard for open dialog. Note that I am only anti-union because I am pro-excellence. If the teachers unions start demonstrating earnest support and action toward excellence, I would not have any issue with the unions. At this point they appear to be the primary impediment to achieving anything close to a level of excellence.
Frankly: Go back and revisit your repeated assertions that poverty is to blame for so many crappy public school outcomes and then come back to this post of yours. There is such incongruity in your positions on this I am sure you have just dug in your heels in stubborn resolve to protect unionized teacher jobs at all costs to the kids. I think your heart and head might not be in the right place as it relates to education.
In NYC the discussion about which schools are successful or not is defined by standardized test scores in English and math. It is high stakes testing, in which the focus of education centers around the test relative to everything else. It creates perverse incentives. It is like using body mass index (BMI) alone as the indicator of good health. This kind of phenomenon is sometimes called Campbell’s Law.
Here I will focus on Success Academy, because it has most been in the news, it was the specific focus of Bill de Blasio’s criticism, and you mentioned it specifically in previous comments as the example of a reform plan that should be followed.
In describing its success and justification, Success Academy leads with its standardized test scores (“82 percent of Success Academy pupils passed the math exams, compared with 30 percent citywide. They also outperformed the city in reading, 58 percent to 26 percent.”, source). But its enrollment trends are troubling.
They have a high attrition rate (source):
They enroll a lower than average percentage of ELL and special ed. students (source).
They show higher rates of disciplinary action on their students, especially for special-ed students (source).
When I read this, I can’t help but wonder if this environment tends to be more hostile to boys. Having raised a “non-template” kid who required ELL and special ed services, and was often a handful with discipline, I can’t help but react to this information. I don’t think this program would have taken my son.
But rather than Moskowitz and Success Academy going “code 3” and screaming bloody murder, why not be pro-active in addressing the criticism? Surely they have the resources to figure this out, sooner rather than later.
Frankly: Now, wdf1 just took that hope away because he is concerned that the charter schools you would otherwise attend are not loading up on enough other troubled students.
There is more to this story than is superficially reported in the media. The only major thing de Blasio has done here is set parameters for which charter expansions. De Blasio allowed most of Success Academy Charter expansions to go through, but rejected three based on reasonable grounds (source).
Earlier I suggested that all charters were bad. What I take issue with is charter schools that buy in to high stakes testing to define their success, and do not appear to provide adequate access to all students.
In particular, when a charter school can’t enroll a representative percent of the community with respect to ELL, it is a sign that they haven’t done their homework in reaching out to ELL community. They have done conventional publicity in English. But reaching ELL families is a different matter. You can’t use conventional means to get your message out. DJUSD had a problem with this, where many programs were under-represented with respect to ELL families. Davis Bridge has made good progress in fixing this. It’s not where it needs to be yet, but it’s improving.
Frankly: New York screwed up making this a huge project role out. It should have been an incremental role out with Agile methods to improve and refine the system and process toward a goal of excellence.
Well, that is only part of the criticism. But you missed the other more important criticism. Again, the definition of success for this “School of One” program is high stakes testing, standardized test scores in English and math. It attempts to compare it’s high stakes test scores to high stakes test scores of other public schools. One teacher’s visit to a Shool of One site noted that there was a heavy (exlusive?) focus on standardized test prep. I say abolish the whole high stakes testing concept for all schools.
At various times you seem to agree with me that high stakes testing is a terrible idea. After all, that’s part of what defines yours and mine non-template learners. It is that mechanism that correlates to the increase in ADHD diagnoses. And it has narrowed the focus on what education should be. This is where we get into our discussion about what should be measured in education beyond high stakes standardized test scores in English and math. And again, I await your Vanguard article in which you outline your solutions to this.
Washington Post blog, 3/14/2014: Netflix’s Reed Hastings has a big idea: Kill elected school boards
….