Thoughts on the Budget deal

This may yet be premature, but…the fact that we once again appear to be close to a budget deal in Harrisburg is bringing tentative sighs of relief across the Commonwealth. However, there is a lot that should be said about the deal and the process before we move onto the next thing. So, before we forget…

We came uncomfortably close to enacting a so-called ‘back-end referendum’ which would have required voter approval for all school tax increases. While the idea has an intrinsic appeal, few taxpayers understand what the potential consequences of such legislation would have been.

For example, most of the public wouldn’t know that school districts and their boards have little control over the main drivers of property tax increases: health care, special education, and the pension liability, the last two being state mandates. Without the ability to raise taxes when necessary, each year fewer funds would be available for the education of students.  This is particularly problematic for districts that must raise the lion's share of their revenue from local taxes. It’s hard not to see this as an attack on the idea of public education, itself. 

As we know from experience, passing a referendum is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, further compounded by the fact that this requirement would have made school taxes the only tax that people get to vote on directly. Passing a referendum requires considerable administrative time and effort – time and effort that would be taken away from the more important task of educating students. Due to the uncertainty involved, two budgets would have to be prepared, one for each scenario, and you can pretty much forget about multi-year budget planning. And, of course, you never know what you’re going to get from the state, since they generally can’t pass a budget on time.

Ironically, besides being bad policy, the concept of referendum is also deeply undemocratic. There already exists a time-honored and often-used mechanism for affecting school board actions you don’t agree with. They’re called elections! There is no evidence to support the idea that state legislators are somehow in a better position than locally elected school boards to determine what is in the best interest of local schools and communities.

We also came perilously close to eliminating the property tax altogether. While this idea is certainly worth considering – the reliance on the property tax is one of the main drivers of education funding inequities - this is not the sort of change one should make in the middle of the night behind closed doors, with no public discussion!

One thing that can be said in favor of the property tax is that it is relatively progressive: on average, wealthier people pay more, and allowances can be made for retired people on fixed incomes. Another thing that can be said is that, unlike sales and income taxes, property taxes are relatively stable and predictable. Was any consideration given to what would happen to education funding in an economic downturn?  Or how education funds would now be distributed?

Which brings me to my larger point: it is the job of our legislators to be aware of the consequences of the legislation they pass. Isn’t that what they’re being paid to do? Otherwise, who needs a legislature? We could have the public vote directly on everything.

Here’s one more example of what struck me as questionable process: tying the budget negotiations to pension ‘reform’.  Unless changes to the pension system would have significantly impacted next year’s budget - something the current proposal doesn’t do - the merits of making changes to the public pension system really deserves its own conversation. And that conversation ought to include any potential impact on public schools.

However, it should be noted that the hybrid pension proposal is not half-bad as these things go; it’s actually pretty close to what was proposed by PSBA over eight years ago. But the House initially voted it down by an astonishing 149-52. On one side, legislators insisted on keeping the system as it is; on the other, they wanted to eliminate the public pension system altogether. Only 26% of our legislators were willing to accept the compromise. Both then and now, it’s amazing how many people are willing to hold out for what they see as the ‘perfect’ solution, rather than accept that which is merely ‘good’.

Finally, on to the budget itself…  It’s also astonishing to me that we're still willing to subsidize the Marcellus Shale industry. Instead of enacting a reasonable extraction tax, we’re raising sales taxes - which are by nature regressive, having the greatest impact on those with the least ability to pay.

Incredibly, you actually heard Shale industry defenders saying that were we to enact an extraction tax, the Shale drillers would go elsewhere. Like, where else were they going to go??  The gas is here, in Pennsylvania!  Further, most of the jobs that have been produced by the shale boom are short-term in nature, and they’re being filled by people with experience from out-of-state. By far, the greatest potential benefit to the citizens of Pennsylvania of Marcellus Shale lies in taxing it, which so far, we have refused to do.  

Between the refusal to tax Marcellus shale, or to enact common-sense modifications to the charter school law (which currently subsidizes for-profit charter schools to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year), legislators are leaving on the table in the neighborhood of a billion dollars a year. Why? Because they won’t stand up to the special interest groups that fund many of their election campaigns.  It’s really as outrageous as it sounds.

So while I’m relieved that Pennsylvania (once again) appears to be on the verge of a budget deal, I can’t say I’m really happy about it. We could have done a lot better.

Educating for Citizenship

It may seem hard to believe, but until fairly recently in our history, the main purpose of public education was preparing the next generation for the responsibilities of citizenship. In fact, initially, citizenship was the entire point of a public education.  When, in the 1740s, Ben Franklin first proposed the creation of public schools in Pennsylvania, it was to the end of “creating citizens who could make wise political decisions.”

For many years, citizenship education was prominently acknowledged as a core part of the State College Area School District’s mission. “A responsible and involved citizen” was listed at the very top of the aspirational Ten Characteristics of a State High Graduate. That list, by the way, also included attributes such as respect for self and others, personal financial acumen, environmental stewardship, participation in the arts, and competence with technology. In other words, a well-rounded person.

But in recent years, the national conversation on education has focused almost entirely on preparing students for success in the workforce. While that is important, the ability to make a living at something one enjoys is only one component of being a successful citizen. In fact, the core skills of citizenship – the ability to think critically, to communicate clearly and to collaborate with others - are precisely the skills most sought after by employers in the modern economy. (By the way, those skills are also on that list of ‘ten characteristics’.)

Furthermore, citizenship education, done well, ought not to be one just more thing that our schools ‘have to do’.  Rather, the development of these skills should be embedded into the very fabric of how our schools operate. At the earliest age possible our students should be given every opportunity to take ownership of their education and to be active participants in creating a school and classroom environment that is conducive to quality learning.

Just as education is moving away from the rote memorization of facts that can be instantaneously ‘Googled’, citizenship education should be less about memorizing the names and dates of dead presidents, and more about developing the civic skills students will need and use for the rest of their lives. As David Brooks said recently in the NY Times, “Politics is the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions. It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and balancing valid but competing ideas and interests.”

I have long argued that one explanation for our current political inefficacy, particularly at the national and state levels, is that many of our current politicians never had the opportunity to develop those skills. Because schools began to shy away from controversy back in the 1970s, few modern politicians have had the experience of wrestling with a controversial issue in a high school social studies class. Certainly few had the experience of working with others to impact their school environment. (The rules were handed down from the teacher in the front of the room, and that was that.) But we can do better. 

Finally – my apologies for the hyperbole – I firmly believe that the future of the American experiment of democracy depends on whether we do. 

This sounds reasonable, but it's not

re: Arizona Students to Take Required Civics Test in 8th Grade

How so, you ask? Let me count the ways.

First, is Arizona suggesting that the typical 14-year-old who has passed their civics exam is now prepared to vote and be an active participant in a democratic society?  If not, what exactly does this civics test measure?

Almost certainly, this test measures a student’s ability to memorize a list of dates (1776, 1860, 1941…) names (the usual suspects: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln), and the three branches of government - almost all of which can be looked up on the internet in a matter of minutes.

Second, if we were to assume for a moment that this test actually measures something useful - a bit of a leap, I know, but bear with me - what Arizona appears to be saying is that it’s perfectly ok for their students to memorize this stuff, and then forget it all by the time they turn fifteen. (Thereby making room in their heads for other ‘stuff’, thereby reinforcing a model of education more appropriate for the 1950’s - as well as the idea that school is just something that one ‘has to do’.)

Third, since it’s apparently ok for students to memorize, and then forget this ‘stuff’, it implies that civics has no particular relevance to the students’ future.  (Again: it’s just one more hoop they have to jump through to get to the finish line.)

I will note that Pennsylvania has applied the same logic to the notorious Keystone exams.  Keep in mind that whether or not students still remember this stuff when they graduate - according the explicit intent of this legislation - is not important!

Fourth, does this test require that students demonstrate an ability to apply this ‘knowledge’ in any meaningful way?  You know, like being able to see multiple sides of a complex issue? To hear and understand different perspectives, and work towards a solution everyone can live with? Unfortunately, no. That might be useful!

It’s sadly ironic to think that long before Sandra Day O’Connor became a Supreme Court Justice and a dedicated advocate for meaningful civics education, she served two terms in the Arizona state senate.

So Much Reform, So Little Change: part 5

The Way Forward

The reality is that the students who need the most help tend to be in lower-quality schools, with larger classes, fewer resources, and with less-prepared and less-experienced teachers. Given the complexity of the problem, where should we begin?

A good place to start would be to recognize that in a low-performing school, everyone is working below capacity. These aren’t necessarily bad teachers, bad administrators or bad students. Everyone is dragged down by – as well as a contributor to - an organizational culture that expects little and is deeply resistant to change.

(As Payne points out, this concept of working below capacity also includes the attitude towards time. The typical view is that there’s never enough of it, but he argues that there should be a lot more discussion in policy circles on making better use of the time we already have.)

So, while there are a few interventions that have demonstrated some success regardless – for example, formative assessments for diagnosing student learning problems, and smaller class sizes, particularly in the early years – it appears that the best approach to school reform is to focus on interventions that are “tools for increasing district capacity”.

What that means is that, in bottom-tier schools, the first year or two of a new initiative should be more about building organizational infrastructure than about trying to implement anything specific. (Besides, the search for the one best educational model is probably a lost cause. Even if such a model exists, these schools lack the organizational capacity to implement any model with reasonable fidelity.)

First, you need a superintendent who understands organizational dynamics, ideally someone with experience in public education (including experience in the classroom!) Then, as Jim Collins might say, it’s about ‘getting the right people on the bus.’ How do we do that?  

It should be obvious that you begin by paying teachers a living wage. But more importantly, the focus should be on trying to create an environment that is attractive to the kind of teacher that you want in your school: a culture that respects and values teacher contribution; that provides opportunities for collaboration and meaningful professional development; in which teachers are supported by administration; and in which the needs of students are placed above the needs of the adults.

Once you have the right people on the bus, there are some things we have learned – or should have learned - from decades of reform efforts.  (The central problem in struggling schools appears to be an historic lack of adult learning.) Research findings from nearly 40 years ago told us that:

•  training should be practical (not theoretical), teacher-driven and extended                    
• one-shot, drive-by teacher training doesn’t work
•  teachers should be provided with assistance in the classroom
•  teachers should have opportunities to observe similar project in other schools
•  teacher agency is strongly related to outcome
•  there should be regular meetings focused on practical problems 
• Principals should be active participants in the training.

In addition, research has shown that good implantation is more likely to occur:

• in smaller (i.e., “manageable”) schools;
• in schools where the focus is on strengths, not weaknesses (such as discipline problems, lack of student skills or parental support, etc.);
• where there is a stable team of consultants providing whole school support.

Finally, here’s a key insight that we ignore at our peril: all of this takes time. Organizational reform can’t be rushed. In fact, when people who have led reform efforts were asked what one thing they would do differently, the most common answer was “take more time” – for planning, for training, for reflection. The unfortunate paradox is that time is something the children don’t have.

So Much Reform, So Little Change, part 4

The Dynamics of Organizational Change

Payne challenges the idea that it is possible to change these schools without making anyone do anything they don’t want to do. As he sees it, the fallacy of this idea is based on an assumption of a ‘rational’ organization; that is, if you show the education professionals a better way to do something, they will naturally adopt it. But this ignores the fact that once hopelessness takes root in an organization, the organization ceases to function rationally.

Observing this dynamic at work, it’s easy to label it as resistance to change, but Payne argues that this is not entirely accurate, either. It’s more skepticism than actual resistance, and it manifests itself in predictable ways. Veteran teachers – who have seen reforms come and go - are more likely to be uncooperative than newer teachers. It’s also not uncommon for relatively successful teachers to be resistant, because they’re already doing well, and they don’t need some outsider telling them what to do!

A common scenario looks like this: there’s one group of successful teachers who are split about a given reform, another group of younger teachers who are pro-reform, but who have little political clout within the system. (These are often elementary teachers who seem to have a genetic predisposition to accept change.) And then there’s a group of older, high-status teachers who are adamantly opposed. This last group often has disproportionate influence as to whether any change will be adopted, and they give legitimacy to the doubters.        

Another issue with the implementation of education research lies in the mindset of the university researchers who develop the model. Because they spend much of their time in the ivory tower, they often have little understanding of the real-world demands on teachers and principals. Worse, a deeply ingrained cultural assumption that places the university at the top of the educational food chain often leads to a sense of superiority, unjustified confidence in the reform model, and a lack of interest in practitioner knowledge! A former superintendent in New Jersey once commented that not one of the university developers he had worked with over the years had felt it necessary to strategize with school leaders before starting work.

A quality superintendent is essential to the success of any proposed reform. Unfortunately, the tenure of most urban superintendents is less than three years, which is not nearly long enough for a significant organizational change to take root, and certainly not long enough to actually begin to make a difference - which further reinforces the ‘this too shall pass’ organizational mindset. Also unfortunately, the next guy typically has no interest in building on the work of his predecessor; he’s got limited time to establish his own reputation!

This ignores research that indicates it typically takes about five years for a comprehensive school reform to produce sustainable results. What typically happens is that a new intervention shows some early promise (which gets everyone excited), and then there’s a slight dip as the initial enthusiasm wears off. Then just about the time everyone is getting on the same page and becomes comfortable with what they’re doing, there’s a change in administration, and we’re on to something else.

The other scenario (particularly when there’s serious grant money involved) is that under relatively ideal conditions, a new intervention shows promise. Under pressure from funders, the reform is then ‘brought to scale’ under less ideal conditions, with diluted support and, predictably, less impressive results - and the plug gets pulled. (Unless the funders are of an ideological bent, in which case evidence, or the lack thereof, isn’t important.)

An interesting factoid: in the year before Katrina wiped away the deeply dysfunctional New Orleans school district, said district had posted its best test scores ever.

On that note, Payne offers some interesting insight into how the ground was prepared for the Michelle Rhee reign of terror in Washington, D. C.  In addition to pervasive outright corruption, the best description of the school district prior to her administration was this outside analysis: “the district hasn’t done anything to improve student achievement.” When there’s nowhere to go but up, it engenders a willingness try anything.

This mentality of ‘anything would be an improvement’ can easily lead to investments in the simplistic and untested: closing of neighborhood schools, massive change-overs to charter schools, teacher evaluations via student test scores, etc..  Another manifestation of the ‘try anything’ mentality is the willingness to look for educational leadership anywhere except among educators! 

Unfortunately, this allows us to avoid thinking about the hard questions of instruction, human capital, and school culture - and it leaves us with a false choice between the entrenched politicized bureaucracy and ‘bold, radical’ transformation.

So Much Reform, So Little Change, part 3

'High expectations', Quality teachers & Professional development

There is similar nostalgia (see previous post) for Catholic schools, especially in urban areas. Historically, Catholic schools seem to do two things very well. One, there is a consistent message of high expectations; ‘no excuses’, if you will.  Two, explicit attention is paid to developing in students a sense of moral purpose. Students aren’t being educated for the sake of education, or just to acquire job skills. “Students are pushed to develop a moral vision towards which those skills should be pointed.” For the Catholic school, education does not exist in a vacuum; central to their mission is the idea that education is the means to fulfilling a higher purpose.

This brings us to the question of ‘high expectations’.  The degree to which students ‘invest’ in their education is greatly affected by their perception of what the learning environment appears to be asking of them, but this dynamic of high expectations is often misunderstood or misrepresented. Students may respond to demanding teachers, but only after the teacher has first established legitimacy, not only as a competent teacher, but as someone who genuinely cares for the student. It is not enough just to have ‘high expectations.’ 

Consider your own experience. I have no doubt that the teachers who ‘got the most out of you’ were not only ‘demanding’; they also expressed a genuine interest in you as a person.

It is therefore ironic that some (generally white) teachers mistakenly think that what ‘these kids’ really need is for someone to be ‘nice’ to them. Not that there’s anything wrong with being nice – nice is good!  Unless niceness is a stand-in for not expecting very much.

The quality teacher predicament is another issue that lacks an easy solution. Despite some positive rhetoric in policy circles about ‘placing teachers where they’re most needed’, I’ve yet to see a credible plan to address this. The problem is, we’d first have to repeal the law of supply and demand. Wealthy schools can afford to be picky; large urban schools with dysfunctional school cultures, not-so-much.  (Another problem is that states don’t hire teachers, school districts do.)

Making the matter worse, it’s hard for bottom-tier schools to keep the teachers they already have. Some of this is about money, but a lot of it is about school culture: lack of administrative support, lack of discipline, and the lack of teacher autonomy. But the challenge is greater than that. Even if you found a way to sprinkle in a handful of high-quality teachers, you may benefit a few students in the short term, but you’re not likely to change the overall culture of the school. Most likely, those teachers will eventually leave out of frustration, or adopt the norms of the school. Why?  Because the nail that sticks up tends to get hammered down. You’re making everyone else look bad!

It’s also important to note that ‘quality’ teachers don’t exist in a vacuum. A teacher’s ‘effectiveness’ is largely a function of the school environment. The best seed in the world won’t produce a good crop if the soil lacks nutrients and water!

Payne devotes an interesting chapter to the issue of teacher professional development. There are still many administrators who rely on the (albeit, inexpensive) model of ‘drive-by’ professional development: you send the teachers out to be ‘trained’ (or bring in an expert to deliver a lecture) and then send the teachers back into the classroom. This is based on a mindset that teachers are essentially interchangeable, programmable widgets, and shows little understanding of how adults actually learn. And so, even in places that have made arguably progressive investments in say, teacher coaching, you have administrators who don’t understand why coaches need time to collaborate, build relationships, or spend time in the classroom!  

In this model, it is the job of administrators to administer; it is, ironically, not part of their job description to understand how adults learn (as opposed to an organizational model in which principals are seen as ‘lead learners’). Which just highlights how important quality principals are to the educational capacity of a school.