Assigned Reading

Last week the Valley Breeze reported that the Lincoln school officials were planning to close a school. Economic woes have left the district, like every other, searching for ways to trim educational spending. Decreasing enrollment apparently made the school closure a reasonable option, despite the upheaval it might cause as children are shifted to different schools, class sizes increase, and some employees lose their jobs. It’s one of those “bite the bullet” moves that many school leaders face in these tough times.

So it came as a bit of a surprise that this week, the Valley Breeze is reporting that Lincoln school officials will be taking a trip to China, of all places, in the coming months. Forging a partnership with the Confucius Institute at Bryant University in Smithfield, a grant will cover the costs of sending four from Lincoln schools to a a conference in Beijing.

According to the article, no teachers will be attending the trip. The four travelers are all administrators: the superintendent, the director of curriculm, and two principals. Plans also include adding a Mandarin class at the high school, and something called a “Confucius classroom” at the high school and at an elementary school.

In these tough times, when teachers are struggling to squeeze basic curricula into the school day, it seems outlandish to make China part of a districtwide initiative. More ornaments for the Christmas tree schools. One wonders if teachers were part of the decision-making.

On the elementary school level, officials propose providing teachers with resource kits to support the integration of Chinese culture and language units of study across the curriculum.

An answer may be found in the true outrage; no teachers will go to China. Despite any benefits that may emerge from such a partnership, this will almost certainly be a public relations nightmare. While the plans are underway to move kids from their schools and layoff adults, the administrators will be packing their bags for the Far East.

It might have been wise for the district to send a couple of teachers and high school students to China with an administrator. The trip would be a learning opportunity. Upon their return, the students could develop a presentation for educators, parents and students of all ages extolling the educational virtues of such a partnership.

Instead it looks like the top brass taking a vacation. Some will think it looks ugly.

Like everyone else, I was stunned to hear the radio report. Commissioner Deborah Gist had ordered an end to seniority bidding statewide. While the RI Department of Education and the Board of Regents seemed to be heading in that direction, I hadn’t expected such a directive so soon. Gist seems to be taking a page from her former DC boss Chancellor Michelle Rhee, moving quickly to bring about change. In her letter to superintendents, Gist writes:

The new BEP [Basic Education Program] requires that the system of management, professional training, evaluation, and assignment of instructional staff ensures that highly effective educators work with classrooms of students who have significant achievement gaps. In my view, no system that based teacher assignments solely on seniority can comply with this regulation.

Her argument is the same former commissioner Peter McWalters used to bring this change to Providence schools. Seniority bidding means that the best teachers are not necessarily in the classrooms with the neediest of students.

Rhode Island is becoming a leader in school reform because of the initiatives its leaders propose, despite the union obstacles they face.

I believe strongly that seniority bidding is a poor way to fill teacher vacancies. Students benefit most when decisions are made based on quality and results. Some of the best teachers I have seen and worked with were only a couple years into the profession. It’s ridiculous to argue that any one factor, such as years of service, can be used to judge teachers’ abilities.

Assigning teachers based on merit, most importantly, restores some power to principals. As I have often stated, the principal position has been weakened by meddling bureaucrats and union leaders. Principals must be able to build staff that share core principles and pedagogy, much the way charters are able to do.

Union leaders are now arguing that politics will play a role in job placement. At Anchor Rising, NEARI Executive Director Bob Walsh commented:

When you all figure out that the alternative to seniority transfers among those certified for a position will be the return of political influence to the transfer process, you might get a glimmer about my point of view and how seniority stops political influence in placement decisions in its tracks.

Hiring based on merit will be the result of committee decisions, much like the hiring of new teachers today. Principals, teachers, parents, and other community members may serve on these committees. There should be no return to the days when one person decided who got the jobs.

Those who work harder, show more talent, and produce better results will earn the jobs they seek. What could possibly be better for our kids?

By the way, did you know you can follow the commissioner on Twitter?

Ted Sizer, who developed the Essential Schools movement and founded the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown, has passed away, according to the ProJo blog. He was 77.

Read more at the Essential Schools website.

Thomas Newkirk’s commentary in Education Week states, far better than I could, exactly how I feel and have been trying to express for quite some time. Bureaucratic interference is a key problem in schools.

The closer you are to ground level in U.S. schools, the more you become aware of the deprofessionalizing power of complex educational systems and programs. Often, especially in more-affluent districts, these systems pile up on one another, creating an indigestible, incompatible mess: Christmas-tree schools, with lots of ornaments. Programs for the responsive classroom, comprehension strategies, guided reading, direct instruction, leveled book, differentiated instruction, focused correction, and writing workshop jostle for teachers’ attention, all claiming to be aligned with state systems of evaluation (and all, of course, “research-based”).

Amen! But will the bureaucrats listen? I won’t hold my breath (nor will I serve on the committee).

The media have had great fun with the news that Marge Simpson, the mother of the animated family The Simpsons, would grace the cover of Playboy magazine. Playboy readership has dropped significantly, and its editors were looking for a way to make the magazine more hip and attractive to a younger audience. The question is: How young an audience?

The Simpsons appears at all hours, and is undoubtedly marketed towards children. Bart Simpson is easily identifiable by kids of all ages. One must wonder what readership that magazine hopes to entice. Incidentally, only the newsstand edition will feature Marge on the cover. Regular subscribers will receive a more traditional version. Hmmm.

Marge Simpson may just be the pornography industry’s version of Joe Camel, the animated mascot meant to appeal to a “younger” smoker.

It was great to read Teachers express concerns over proposed evaluations in today’s Providence Journal. According to the article, only 35 teachers showed up to a hearing by the Board of Regents, called to discuss the proposed statewide evaluation standards now being considered. What’s good? That most of the teachers were there not to argue against evaluation, but to argue for district control.

In most districts, new teachers are evaluated once or twice a year, until tenure is earned. Tenured teachers are evaluated on a less frequent scale, often every two or three years. The state is attempting another power grab, mandating annual evaluations for all teachers statewide.

The state mandate, however, would impact some very effective evaluation tools used in local districts. Most of the teachers at the hearing were from Coventry, which is often cited as having the most effective evaluation system in the state. Coventry focuses its annual evaluations on new teachers, while assessing tenured teachers less frequently. According to the town’s teacher union president, Kelly Erinakes, the evaluations are detailed, take up to 20 hours to complete, and point to specific areas in need of professional growth. I was surprised to read that, according to Erinakes, “three to eight new teachers are fired each year.”

The district in which I teach has spent years rewriting and perfecting its evaluation tool. It seems similar to that developed in Coventry.

Once again, state educrats are attempting to usurp district control. The state should not mandate a blanket evaluation system to be used by all districts. Instead, it should continue to allow districts to develop their own appropriate evaluation tools, and only meddle in those communities that are unsuccessful. The one-size-fits-all approach is seldom effective.

Across the state and the nation, Cumberland mayor Dan McKee is receiving attention for his efforts to reform public education. He deserves the accolades. But Mayor McKee is not the only strong voice for education reform in the Blackstone Valley, as evidenced by Lincoln town administrator Joe Almond’s letter to the editor in the Valley Breeze. Mr. Almond takes school officials to task, rightly so, for expressing concerns about the financial impact charter school tuition could have on the district. He advocates for parental choice, and concludes with:

It is truly time for leaders to embrace innovative educational reform, respect parental choice, identify and implement needed cost savings, and collaborate to achieve a fair and equitable state education funding formula. The opportunity is rapidly disappearing, if officials fail to respond proactively to the fiscal severity of this situation, we will be exposing our students, parents, staff, and taxpayers to the reality of a fiscal meltdown in our schools!

Public schools are in desperate need of innovation. Until education leaders step up, expect more parents and students to gravitate towards charters.

Opinion: An interesting message to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, from CA Attorney General and former Oakland mayor Jerry Brown. Brown plans to run for governor next year, a position he held for two terms in the 70s and 80s.

Blog: In what must be a new low, a teachers union official in Chicago is blaming school reform for the beating death of a 16-year-old honor student. She called the replacement of poor teachers “the deadliest reform of all”.

News: Funding schools in Hawaii has become increasingly difficult. The teachers union solution: teach less. Hawaii schools will be closed on 17 Fridays this year as teachers get the time off, unpaid, to save cash.

I’ve long argued that the success of charter schools is the result of no union interference. More recently I’ve amended my argument; charters have less interference by bureaucrats, and this is another factor that contributes to their success.

So it comes as no surprise that districts are facing increases in the number of families choosing charter schools for their children. The Valley Breeze reported on this trend in one district, Lincoln. Federal, state, and local bureaucrats continue to filch decision-making power from schools, and as a result significant success isn’t realized. Parents follow the success.

As an example, let’s assume a small elementary school has discovered a gap in its math instruction. Standardized test scores reveal that students can calculate using algorithms, but have trouble explaining those algorithms. Through self-analysis, the faculty realizes more emphasis must be placed on number sense. Teachers begin brainstorming ways to alter the curriculum to include this new emphasis.

This is how it works at many charter schools. But in many public schools, a change in curriculum requires districtwide approval, and is seldom allowed. Curricula is developed and written at the district level, and funds are used to purchase and implement a single math program at all schools. Schools must follow the district mandates; anything else can only be considered supplemental.

It seems more and more decisions are being made by administrators who spend little time in schools. They believe themselves capable of making a blanket decision that will have the most positive effects on every school in the district.

Any good educator knows that there is no single way to teach a concept effectively to all children. We know we must differentiate our instruction to meet the needs of all types of learners.

These very same administrators who promote differentiated instruction in the classrooms fail to see how schools need to individual their approaches to meet the needs of unique student populations.

The weakest position in public schools has become the principal. Principals must carry out the orders of administrative bureaucrats while working within the confines of a detailed union contract. For public school success to grow, we must hire only the very best as principals, and provide them with the power to make meaningful change in the learning communities they are supposed to lead.

Charter schools are doing just that. More parents will see it, and I suspect even suburban districts will realize greater movement to charters as more become available. For now, Lincoln officials worry about the budget implications; hopefully soon they’ll begin to question why their kids are going elsewhere.