Assigned Reading

Teachers unions and Department of Education bureaucrats will be seeing a lot of each other in the coming year. Mostly in courtrooms.

The Providence Journal calls one court challenge “inevitable”, and rightly so. Commissioner Gist’s assertion that the Basic Education Program, or BEP, authorizes her to alter the way teachers are assigned to job openings has rankled union leadership. These leaders have been waiting for the first opportunity to challenge Gist’s directive, and have found it with the Collaborative. RIFT, the Rhode Island AFT affiliate, represents teachers and assistants at the Northern RI Collaborative, whose contract expired June 30. Forty-five staff members have been laid off, and will be rehired based on qualifications and seniority, rather than seniority alone.

The RIFT’s Michael Mullane claims the NRIC action “violates the contract”. But with its expiration, this may be another challenge to the law that mandates a contract remain in effect until another is agreed upon.

If the court sides with RIDE and NRIC, the decision could be a final nail in the seniority coffin.

RIFT is planning to file another suit in the coming days. Gist’s overhaul of the recertification process includes the elimination of teacher iPlans. Many teachers have been working for three or more years completing professional development and electronic iPlans in order to renew their teaching credentials. Union leaders will argue that teachers fulfilled the iPlan requirements as directed by RIDE, and the work should be honored. If not, teachers should be reimbursed for the money spent on conferences and other PD. RIFT is seeking at least two teachers from each district to sign the complaint.

From the beginning, the iPlan seemed a bureaucratic behemoth. Teachers required extensive, and expensive, training to understand the process and be able to use the technology. The paperwork alone was enormous, and “professional development” was too loosely defined. The bureaucrats at the Department of Education wasted a fortune putting into place an ineffective recertification tool. Now new bureaucrats have their own ideas, and teachers are left waiting in the dark.

Teachers near completion of their iPlans should be grandfathered, and union is right to argue on their behalf.

Rhode Island Commissioner of Education Deborah Gist continues to push for union support of the state’s Race to the Top grant application. A video released this week attempts to clarify for educators what the RTTT grant will do for teacher evaluations, and how our schools will benefit from the federal funds.

The commissioner explains that a new evaluation system is forthcoming, regardless of the RTTT results. Fifty-one percent of the new evaluation will rely on student performance. This time, however, Gist states any district that does not support RI’s application will be ineligible for a share of the funds, and will not be allowed to participate in developing the new evaluation system.

This “threat” is an example of how RTTT grant funds will strengthen the bureaucracy at the expense of local district control. Support our goals and put our plans into action, or get nothing.

Commissioner Gist’s intentions may be good, but local leaders should be leery of selling their souls for a capital fix. When the funds dry up, the bureaucratic control will remain.

Charters succeed because decision-making power is maintained by the shareholders. We need to allow such power at individual public schools as well. The RTTT grant will only weaken local decision-making, and empower state and federal bureaucracies.

Despite the appeal, I don’t think it’s worth the money.

H/T: Anchor Rising

It’s not often that I find myself on the same side as our state’s teachers unions. But their efforts to kill a statewide 15% health insurance contribution for teachers were correct, even if their motives were not.

I think teachers, and any other employee, should contribute to the cost of health insurance. When something is free, there are no incentives to use it wisely. And with the excessive costs of healthcare and insurance, it’s unreasonable to expect taxpayers to foot the entire bill for educators and other public employees.

But I believe in small government, and local decision-making. While the healthcare contribution is reasonable, the power grab by the state government is not. If we allow the state to usurp local control even on an issue that seems just, we lose the small government argument.

Contracts are negotiated by local councils and school committees, and municipal taxpayers pay the bills. They should take a stand and demand greater health insurance contributions from teachers and municipal employees.

The state should worry about its own business, like fixing our decaying road and bridges, as an example.

Bill Felkner of the Ocean State Policy Research Institute got it right with his Sunday Journal commentary. He is wary of bureaucrats, armed with good ideas, seizing power from local schools and districts. Commissioner Deborah Gist is making positive changes, but in doing so is solidifying greater authority at the state level. Felkner argues on behalf of parents.

Ultimately, the balance of power must be shifted from government to the parents. This is the free-market approach to education reform: Instead of changes being centrally dictated by a mayor, superintendent or education commissioner, they are driven by the cumulative choices of individual parents. This ensures that purchasing power is in the hands of those with the most vested interest.

The new school-funding formula Gist proposes is the perfect opportunity to greatly expand choices for parents. A per-pupil formula would let the money be tagged to individual students, following them to any geographically reasonable public school, mayoral academy, charter school or even a private school.

The proposed funding formula does, in fact, attach money to students. Why not allow parents choice in determining where that money will be spent?

The legislature approved today a measure to increase the number of charter schools allowed in the state. And if success at the BV Mayoral Academy continues, expect to see more of these schools in the near future. These are real choices for parents.

As I have argued again and again, decision-making power should be ensured and maintained at the local level, within the school communities that know their students strengths and needs. Centralizing power, whether with the unions or bureaucrats, has the same effect; it hinders our attempts to provide kids with the very best education, the education they deserve.

So it looks like the Central Falls crisis may be coming to an end. Certainly the teachers worked over their union leadership; those pink slips were tangible proof that the administration was serious. And Dr. Gallo, who considers herself an advocate for students and teachers, must have been uncomfortable in her role as the teachers’ Grim Reaper. The teachers will have to convince Dr. Gallo and the Board of Trustees that they are willing to implement true reform. Dr. Gallo has indicated the pink slips will not be rescinded until she has assurances from all teachers.

The union leadership is the biggest loser in this standoff. A majority of the public seemed to side with Gallo, and were critical of teachers asking for more even as schools fail and the economy suffers. Now these leaders will return to the table to discuss reform (read: money) without any real job security. If the teachers try hardball tactics again, Dr. Gallo can just walk away, and allow the pink slips to take over. The union will not, however, give up its legal actions against the school district, which may increase animosity between the two sides.

I must admit I’m disappointed. While I felt for the teachers whose jobs were threatened, I so desperately wanted to see a public confrontation that exposed the true union motives and interests. It seemed we were approaching a real crossroads in education, and many teachers I know were debating the merits of both sides. I was surprised at how many, whether in person or in writing, expressed their dissatisfaction with the union position. Perhaps there’s still hope for our profession yet.

Stafford Palmieri at Fordham’s Flypaper blog agrees.

Still, it’s depressing, because here was the top brass all the way down in D.C. standing up for the very tough decision of little district’s supe. And here was the union scrambling to find a way to respond to the situation, when the stats at Central Falls HS basically spoke for themselves. And where was hard-knocking reformer RI State Supe Deborah Gist while all this reconciliation was going on?

And so goes the 24-hour media cycle. Sadly, Central Falls students are definitely no better, and maybe even worse, off today than they were earlier this week.

Education blogger Joanne Jacobs thinks a touch new principal with firing power is what CF High really needs in order to improve.

When a school is as dysfunctional as Central Falls High, it’s not just the teachers. It’s a succession of ineffective principals, faddish and incoherent curricula, poor support from parents and a lot more. A bad school drags down average teachers and drives out the most ambitious. What this school needs is an exceptionally good principal — competent is not good enough — with the authority to replace the least-effective tenured teachers. Central Falls might get a strong leader, but is unlikely to let the new principal fire the teachers who flunk those “rigorous evaluations.”

I agree with Joanne as well. I have long argued that bureaucrats and union leaders, equally, have stripped the principals of any real power to bring change to their schools. Teachers at CF have complained of the high turnover of principals at the high school. It doesn’t take long for principals to realize the hostility towards change, and the lack of any meaningful power to do something about it. Quick leadership turnover reflects badly on teachers and administrators in a school district.

The Central Falls debacle did promote a national discussion, and even the president participated. Although I shouldn’t have been, I was surprised at how much misinformation was out there. Even the respected Jay Mathews messed up, and embarrassingly admitted so. We can only hope that the needs of students someone finds its way to the center of the table as Dr. Gallo and union leaders sit down and continue their discussion about school reform.

Once again, Tom Ward hits it out of the park. In his Valley Breeze editorial, Ward celebrates the success of the new Democracy Prep school in Cumberland, and wonders why a local school official doesn’t do the same. Lincoln school superintendent Georgia Fortunato worries that more parents in town will send their children to Democracy Prep, resulting in a significant financial loss. “It could be very devastating for the school district,” said Fortunato. Ward writes:

Devastating – as in “We lose $8,000 per child” – for the school district. And perhaps the best single thing that will ever happen to the children. How did we get to this place, where what’s best for the school district and what’s best for the child are two very different things?

Public school administrators and union leaders need to understand that charters are not going away. In fact, they should expect to see more of them. In Central Falls, Superintendent Fran Gallo couldn’t ignore the success of The Learning Community in her city. So rather than complain, Gallo initiated a partnership with the charter. Gallo and The Learning Community representatives discussed the partnership’s success on the local access show Kids Count, which can be viewed here.

Fortunato’s complaint that Democracy Prep hurts Lincoln’s bottom line will fall on deaf ears; parents won’t consider the financial impact when they decide who can provide the best education for their children. It also doesn’t help that, last week, Fortunato was arguing for $31,000 in next year’s budget to paint and recarpet the administration building. Considering there are no children in this building, is this the best way to spend education funds in these tough economic times? Really.

Union leaders often argue that the positive impact of charters affects only a limited number of children. But in truth, charters are like laboratories. The bureaucrats and educators need to see what’s working, and adopt these strategies. Ward concludes with this.

Traditional public education leaders, both administrative and labor, will have to evolve or get out of the way. It’s just a matter of time.

Precisely. Working to destroy charter schools hurts children. For those who call themselves education professionals, the welfare of the children should always come first.

In his ProJo letter, former teacher Fred Sculco of Westerly takes NEARI executive director Bob Walsh to task. He criticizes Mr. Walsh for refusing to sign on the state’s RTTT federal funding grant application. While I typically enjoy a fellow teacher’s challenge of the union’s leadership, the conclusion to Mr. Sculco’s letter left me speechless.

We desperately need access to $100 million in free federal funds.

Free federal funds? The money, of course, was taken from the states through federal income taxes. So it’s sophomoric to claim a return of these funds is “free” money.

But more frustrating is that Mr. Sculco appears oblivious to the federal mandates that will be attached to the grant funding. Local schools will be forced to cede more control to federal authorities, who know little about the communities and what their children need. These educrats believe their one-size-fits-all solutions will save public education everywhere. No Child Left Behind has done little to improve schools, and many leaders are already making its funeral arrangements. Yet these federal bureaucrats think their next idea will be the solution.

Requesting federal education funds is about as free as asking Don Corleone for a favor. Payback is very expensive.

My concerns about RTTT funding are mirrored by those of Robert Holland, expressed in an opinion piece in Friday’s Providence Journal. The feds are using the RTTT initiative to bride states into giving up local control in favor of a national curriculum.

Even charter schools, which RTTT supposedly encourages, will lose the autonomy that has made them successful.

School reformers have cheered the Obama administration for using RttT to pressure states to be more receptive to independently managed charter schools and use student test scores in evaluating teachers. But if the feds are calling the shots via standards-setting and enforcement, charter schools will be accountable not to local parents but to Washington power brokers, and teachers will teach to tests manipulated by national special interests and be held accountable for results having nothing to do with academic excellence.

Centralizing educational decision-making in Washington will spell disaster, further politicizing our schools. If Rhode Island was in better financial shape, it could chose, like Alaska and Texas, to forego RTTT funding and its accompanying mandates. Instead, our state will take the bribe, and hope the federal government can have greater success. Don’t hold your breath.

No educational writer today is better than Jay Mathews, a columnist and blogger for the Washington Post. Yesterday he wrote this:

The D.C. schools that work best are run by principals who have the power to teach their students any way they and their teachers think best, as long as achievement improves.

Mathews targets a couple of do-gooding council members who have proposed a dramatic increase in physical education time for city students. With the increase in obesity and unhealthy behaviors, some might consider the proposal a worthy idea. But the councilors do not address how schools will pay for the additional physical education. And since the proposal does not include a longer school day, physical education will have to displace academics; the councilors offer no suggestions.

It’s these bureaucratic dictates, no matter how well-meaning they might be, that are often the obstacles for school improvement.

Mathews is exactly right when he calls for more decision-making power at the school level; give principals and teachers the power to make change, and hold them accountable.

But telling them [individual schools] they have to do it whether it works for them or not is a bad idea, one of many from politicians who thought they were doing the right thing but never considered the consequences.

Amen.

It’s convenient for adults to blame kids for the failures of the public education system. In a weekend letter-to-the-editor in the Providence Journal, 47-year veteran teacher Robert Salerno does just that.

I submit that they might learn that the problems of public education do not lie with the teachers but with the students themselves. Although many youngsters try to be good students, there are far too many who do not.

These boys and girls should be called “attendees,” ones who go to school but give little or no effort. Their numbers are larger than ever and I will leave it to our educational leaders to find out why this is happening in many areas of our state. These unmotivated students hurt their parents, classmates, school and society. According to the research, this begins to appear in middle school and becomes worse as these “attendees” move to the high school. This phenomena is not the fault of the classroom teacher.

As a teacher, I am sickened by this line of thinking. For too long, the adults that control public schools have allowed stagnation. Change has come too slow, if at all. Today students sit in the same classrooms where their parents and grandparents once sat, in schools where operations have changed very little.

While childhood has been revolutionized by technology, our schools remain antiquated structures incapable of providing what our students need for the 21st century. My classroom was constructed with only one pair of electrical outlets…one pair…located in the front of the classroom. An electrical strip was installed in the back of the classroom for a set of computers that is more than five years old. Televisions need to be rolled around on carts, and no access to cable is available. If I am able to pull together an LCD projector with a laptop that can plug into an ethernet port (no wireless), our network security blocks all streaming video.

So we teach the world using textbooks, even though our students can see it and experience it on television and the Internet in their own homes. In real time.

Teachers unions have done everything in their power to improve the conditions for teachers, even at the sacrifice of the students they teach. School days are roughly six hours long, regardless of what students need. Teacher mandated prep periods dictate schedules. Contracts limit what teachers can be asked to do, even when it is clear what kids need. Teacher evaluation systems over the years have been horrendous, no matter what the unionists might tell you. And the unions have sapped every dollar from local school budgets, resulting in deteriorated buildings and outdated technology.

Bureaucrats have reached into all facets of education, leveling mandates that make teaching our kids so difficult. Time is consumed by a ridiculous number of fire and intruder drills, health and wellness initiatives, state and local testing, endless paperwork, and a pet project from just about every bureaucrat with the power to require one. Not a week goes by without a period or two disrupted by some initiative, some do-gooder project, or something “special” that has little to do with the curriculum we are challenged to teach, and often has little impact on the students in our class.

And, or course, there are the parents. The adults who let their kids sit in front of televisions watching inappropriate programming or playing violent video games. They don’t check their kids’ backpacks each night; don’t visit schools for conferences or get involved in the parent groups. Parents who don’t follow up on homework, or classwork and don’t read newsletters from their kids’ teachers. Parents who don’t insist upon a sit down meal each evening and let their kids stay up (or out) until all hours of the night, even on school nights; dads who aren’t even involved in their sons’ lives.

Not all teachers or parents or bureaucrats are this bad. Many teachers and parents are doing the right thing (and probably a few bureaucrats here and there) for their kids. But still many are not. These are often the kids who are failing, the unmotivated kids, the “attendees” as Mr. Salerno refers to them.

Our kids have changed. But the adults refuse. To blame the kids is just another part of our failure to reach them, to teach them, and to care what their futures might hold.

If our kids aren’t learning, then we, the adults, our failing. It’s that simple.