The ‘Core’ of Professional Development

New wine requires new wineskins 

In Allison Gulamhussein’s outstanding article in ASBJ, “Professional Development and the Common Core”, she lays out what I believe could be a framework for broad, systemic education reform. That’s a big deal – and  doable -  but it would require effort and patience. Note: I’ve borrowed the original print title and liberally from the article itself. 

Beginning with this: “research consistently shows that teachers predominately ask students fact-recall questions, and studies analyzing classroom instruction have found that 85 percent of instruction is lecture, recitation, or seatwork, activities which often require very little critical thought.” Further, it was found that “the following were rarely seen in classrooms: student participation in meaning-making and reasoning, investigation and problem-based approaches, questioning strategies, and student generation of ideas and questions.”  

(Note: while this ‘traditional’ approach is not universal, it’s probably safe to assume that it remains most prevalent in the schools with the highest proportion of struggling students – the schools that lack the resources, both financial and in the teaching environment, to attract and support quality teachers.) But I digress.

This is the issue that the Common Core was designed to address, and the reason I continue to believe that much of the criticism of the CC is misplaced – the CC actually points us in the right direction, away from rote memorization and towards the development of critical thinking.  But it is grossly unrealistic to think that we can change a century of teaching practice overnight – especially when we haven’t put in place the kind of supports that teachers will need to make this work. 

So, what is the plan?  Typically, it’s ‘professional development’ of the workshop variety. (And as recently noted in this article, not enough teachers have received even that.) 

 

But what does the research say? “Despite its prevalence, the workshop model’s track record for changing teachers’ practice … is abysmal… a comprehensive study of professional development research found that programs shorter than 14 hours (such as workshops) had no effect on student achievement.”

Why not?  “Traditional forms (of PD) are based on the assumption that the biggest challenge facing teachers is “a lack of knowledge of effective practice.” However, the challenge for teachers isn’t in “acquiring knowledge of new strategies, but in implementing those strategies in the classroom.” Which, if you think about it, is true of  learning any new, complex skill: “first attempts to integrate new skills into practice are awkward, often requiring several practices before the skill is mastered.”

Again, the research: “With traditional professional development, only 10 percent of teachers transfer the skill. However, when supported during implementation, 95 percent of teachers transferred the new skill into their classrooms.”

And what would quality support look like?  “Support takes two forms: coaching and collaboration (an example of which is) the professional learning community – a group of teachers teaching the same content who innovate together and support each other.” 

This brings up the issue of capacity. In our high school, each principal will be responsible for hundreds of quality, time-intensive teaching evaluations each year. Where will they find the time to do this in addition to their current responsibilities? - another reason why the coaching and collaboration models that Allison mentions will be so important. (The development of which will require that schools make an intentional effort to develop cultures of cooperation and trust.)  For many schools, this will be a new and time-consuming task. 

It’s also going to take years to develop reliable and appropriate assessments for these new skills – for both students and teachers. I am deeply skeptical that the ‘bubble tests’ that have been developed to measure “student achievement” (i.e., PA’s Keystone exams) are even remotely capable of this. But there is a similar issue in regards to teaching assessments.

While Pennsylvania’s adoption of the Charlotte Danielson model of teacher evaluation is clearly a step in the right direction, how much professional development have principals received?  One 2-day workshop? (See paragraph six, above.)  It’s going to take years for principals – the primary teacher evaluators  - to get this right.  In the meantime, what are the checks and balances?  Yet we are placing enormous stakes on the outcomes of  these evaluations.

As Gulamhussein notes with justifiable irony: “traditional professional development aims to show teachers how to implement a model of learning that professional development itself ignores when training teachers.”

Survey Says

Admittedly, I haven’t blogged for a while, preferring to point your attention to authors and articles that say it better. (See "Education Bookmarks" to the right.) But I recently came across a survey of registered Pennsylvania voters conducted by the Education Policy and Leadership Center - the results of which I found fascinating, and occasionally astonishing.

When asked to identify the top two issues facing Pennsylvania, 57%. of voters identified the economy (of course).  But a strong second: “increasing state funding for education”, at 40%.  Who knew?

Respondents felt that Pa. public schools do a fairly good job preparing students for college – but that they’re not quite as good at preparing them for “jobs after high school”. I think that’s worth thinking about.  As usual, ‘my local school’ fares somewhat better than schools in general.

When asked to identify the greatest challenge facing teachers, the big winner (loser) was “lack of parental involvement/support”, which has grown from 48% to 57% in just two years. But coming from way back in the pack to a close second at 50%: budget cuts to education. That surprised me.

By far, “the most important factor” in judging the success of a public school should be “student success in post-secondary education or the workforce”. While that may seem like common sense – and it is – wouldn’t it be something if that’s how schools were actually evaluated? (as opposed to test scores, graduation rates, teacher ‘performance’, etc.)

Here’s the result that stunned me: 96% agree (80%, strongly agree) that “the well-being of the Commonwealth depends upon having an educated citizenry.”  Similarly, 97% believe that “all students in Pennsylvania are legally entitled to a quality education.” When do 97% of people agree on anything??  And how well is that belief reflected in our budgetary priorities?

Good question!  The answer: by a margin of 68-20%, taxpaying voters believe that “state government should increase funding to poorer districts, even if it means less funding for wealthier districts.”

In a similar vein, here’s a result I was encouraged to see, since I’ve been making this point for years: 93% of voters agree (75% strongly) that “state government has a responsibility to ensure adequate funding for all school districts… regardless of wealth.” Again, how well is this reflected in public policy? Even more stunning: even in “poor economic times” 81% believe that “lawmakers must make politically difficult decisions concerning additional state revenues” (otherwise known as “raising taxes”).
 
In another victory for the state constitution: 66% oppose taxpayer support for non-public schools, including the religiously-affiliated.

Also notable: strong support for arts education (81%) and full-day kindergarten (73%)
And just in case you were wondering, 43% of respondents identified themselves as having “conservative” social and political views; 25% considered themselves “moderates”; 28% “liberal”.

The Fix is In

Without additional comment...

Corbett's education chief changes PSSA testing rules for charter schools without federal approval

From: The Morning Call October 5, 2012

"A review of PSSA math and reading scores shows charter schools outperformed traditional public schools in 2012.  That's because state Education Secretary Ron Tomalis, at the behest of charter school advocates, changed the testing rules in a way that makes it easier for charter schools to meet state benchmarks."

The new method is less stringent than the standards that must be met by traditional public schools, and which until this year were also applied to charter schools. As a result, 44 of the 77 charter schools that PDE has recently classified as having made AYP for 2011-12 in fact fell short of the targets for academic performance that other public schools had to meet, some even declining in proficiency percentages rather than making gains.

But the change Tomalis quietly instituted was done so without receiving the required approval from the federal Department of Education.

Assessing Multiple Measures

If you follow education news at all these days, it’s hard to avoid hearing about “multiple measures” - usually in the context of developing teacher evaluation tools, but sometimes as another way of assessing student “achievement” (a discussion for another day).  There appears to be a consensus that multiple measures are a good thing, but why?

The idea seems reasonable to most people, but there’s good reason to examine it more closely.

The argument for multiple measures - which, obviously and importantly, are far more time-consuming and expensive to produce than say, a single, standardized test - is that no one has confidence that any single measure will accurately capture what it is that we're trying to “assess”; in this case, teacher "effectiveness".

It would be one thing if each of the measures in the current PDE proposal addressed a particular aspect of so-called “effectiveness”. If that were the case, you would have a potentially useful way of determining that a teacher is strong in one area, but less so in another. But no one is saying that. Instead, PDE appears to be wishfully-thinking that the shortcomings of one measurement tool will somehow cancel out the shortcomings of another. I should note that the law of GIGO (garbage-in, garbage-out) has not been repealed.

Multiple measures are of no value if the individual measures don't measure anything useful!

The fallacy of this thinking is demonstrated by the fact that where similar “multiple measures” have been used in pilot studies, it is not at all uncommon for an individual teacher to move forty percentile points up or down the scale from one year to the next. If you’re a teacher whose job is on the line, that’s somewhat disconcerting.  Not good for morale.

In addition to standardized student test scores (never designed or validated for the purpose of evaluating teachers, and which, at best, measure only a tiny sliver of what we’d like students to know), PDE has also proposed including comprehensive principal observations (still in the early stages of development), as well as building-level data such as attendance and graduation rates. (!!)

I’ve already discussed the absurdity of the latter, so clearly ‘principal observations’ have the most potential. But the occasional “drive-by” observation – the traditional approach – is what everyone is complaining about. Which suggests that if we’re going to do this right, principals would have to spend a lot more time in the classroom. Where’s that time going to come from? And even if it was possible to adequately train every principal in the country, you could never completely eliminate subjectivity (the reason for multiple measures) or the potential for abuse (although I’m sure that never happens.)  So you really do need multiple measures.

But wouldn’t it be nice if there was a set of such measures that produced useful results (i.e., helped teachers to improve their practice), and wasn’t prohibitively expensive? Here’s a suggestion, courtesy of Ilana Garon:

1. Professional observations (i.e., principals)
2. Peer-to-peer observations (other teachers)
3. Teaching portfolios
4. Student work
5. Ask the kids (who provide surprisingly reliable and useful information)

Montgomery County has successfully developed a teaching evaluation system based on similar principles. A huge benefit of such an approach is that it avoids the punitive mind-set that is so counter-productive to - well, teacher effectiveness!  Having strong teacher participation produces a sense of ownership and helps ensure that the process works. I’m waiting to hear a good reason why it wouldn’t.

Now, what? reprised

Regular readers will recognize the reference to Beetle Bailey, and General Halftrack's catch phrase when faced with the bizarre and inexplicable.

To what am I referring? Well, it could be one of several things, but I’ve already talked about Pennsylvania’s new teacher evaluation plan, so let's begin today with the Corbett administration's recent decision to place a moratorium on the PlanCon process.

There is just no way to say this politely: this decision is hare-brained on almost every conceivable level.

“PlanCon” is the procedure that school districts must follow if they want to receive partial state reimbursement for school construction projects. In State College, that amounts to about 9% of construction costs; in many districts, that number is considerably higher. It makes no economic sense for a school district to do a construction project of any significance without access to PlanCon funding.

At a time when architects and construction companies are looking for work – thereby creating a highly favorable bid environment - and interest rates are at historic lows, it’s nearly impossible to imagine a better scenario for undertaking a school construction project. It’s good for the economy because it “creates jobs” and it’s good for taxpayers because, well, it saves money!  

But our Governor didn’t want to put the funding for PlanCon reimbursement into this year’s budget. Keep in mind that this won’t save any money in the long run; in fact, it only puts these expenditures off until later, at a significantly greater cost. Buildings will still have to be built or renovated, and in the meantime, districts will have to deal with the additional expense of replacing boilers, fixing roofs, and paying the high energy costs associated with pre-“oil-crisis-era” construction.

This is government at its dysfunctional worst.

On the other hand, I could be referring to the recently enacted legislation regarding school superintendents – another in a series of legislative initiatives that may appear reasonable until you look closely. This is becoming a pattern..

The new law requires that superintendent contracts now include "objective performance standards" mutually agreed upon by the school board and the superintendent. How that provision will be enforced is a mystery to me – how does one penalize duly elected public officials, and what precedent would this set if we applied the same logic to our representatives at the federal and state levels?

But more importantly, this requirement reflects a profound lack of understanding of the responsibilities of upper management in any organization, and how one effectively evaluates the discharge of those responsibilities. For example, how does one objectively determine whether the superintendent has implemented strategies to ensure fiscal stewardship?  Or developed leadership capacity within the organization? Or established a process for aligning and updating curriculum? Or effectively communicated with the community?

Allow me to point out that merely assigning a number value to any of these goals in no way makes that evaluation ‘objective’. But that’s a point probably lost on legislators.

In addition, superintendent eligibility previously required a graduate degree in educational administration, and at least six years of education experience. But under recently passed House Bill 1307, that’s no longer necessary: anyone with a degree in business, management or law can now become a school superintendent.   

A superintendent is - or should be - the educational leader of a school system: at a minimum, he or she should know what it’s like to have been inside a classroom! - just as the head of your business office should be someone with experience and expertise in school finance. This change makes sense only if you believe that becoming an excellent educator requires no specialized knowledge or training.

Which is precisely what many politicians apparently have come to believe about teachers; perhaps that explains their thinking.

The "Attack on Public Education"

Several months ago I noted that we appeared about to re-argue an issue that for 150 years had been considered settled: whether a free public education is a public good, an essential foundation of a democratic society. Since then, it has become increasingly apparent that the “attack on public education” is not hyperbole; we are in the midst of a serious debate with enormous implications.

The root of this attack has recently become clearer to me, and it goes back at least a generation: the issue is whether or not our students should be taught how to think for themselves. 

The Texas Republican Party has helped clarify this by actually taking a stand against the teaching of critical thinking skills. From their 2012 platform: “we oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

While the Texas GOP has since tried to walk-back from their statement, it strikes me as a classic example of a political “gaff”, defined as when a politician accidentally tells the truth.  At least Rick Santorum has the courage of his convictions. He’s been very clear: he believes that exposing young minds to new ideas is dangerous.

And to be fair, he has a point. The term “sophomoric” describes the phenomenon of second-year college students, recently exposed to new ways of thinking, who suddenly think they’re smarter than everyone else. There is also a long tradition in American culture that values “small-town common sense” (epitomized by “Andy of Mayberry” – see “The Sheriff Who Gave Stature to Small-Town Smarts”) and is skeptical of the arrogance of “big-city slickers” and academics.

As one who lives in a college town, I can tell you that this skepticism is not entirely misplaced.

Of course, there’s always the risk that if you start to teach kids to think for themselves, they might come to their own conclusions. Ironically, the antidote is to have students develop some critical-thinking skills before they get to college. Then they wouldn’t be so easily swayed by every new idea that comes along. Besides, if your “truth” – whatever it is - is so powerful, you would think that it could withstand a bit of scrutiny. The problem is when the foundation of one’s belief  system is a parental “because I said so”.  That’s a house built on sand. 

The other problem with this line of thinking is that, as a practical matter, we no longer have a choice about this. In less than a generation, the routine factory jobs that required minimal thinking – but which used to support a middle-class lifestyle - have vanished.  If we fail to develop in this generation of students the capacity to be creative, critical-thinkers, they will not succeed in the new economy.  (And they’ll be in no position to subsidize our old age!)

Neither will they have the skills to be effective citizens, in which case we will have missed the point entirely. When Ben Franklin proposed establishing public schools in Pennsylvania it was for “the purpose of creating citizens who can make wise political decisions.”

At the risk of over-generalization, it seems to me that there are currently three schools of thought concerning the state of public education. 

1. Those who never liked the idea in the first place, and are looking for an excuse to dismantle it;
2. Those who want to ‘reform’ education by institutionalizing a mid-20^th century mindset that no longer works – in my opinion, the true ‘defenders of the status quo’;  and,
3. Those who think we desperately need to have a conversation about what public education should look like in the 21^st-century. Until ‘the defenders of public education’ unite around a clear articulation of that vision, we will continue to find ourselves playing defense.

Sounds reasonable…

But it’s not.

There seems to be a lot of this going around these days: ideas that seem reasonable on the surface (especially if you’re not really paying attention, which most people are not) but upon close examination are deeply counter-productive, or worse.

To cite an example I’ve used before: a change in the implementation of the Keystone exams that will allow students to take the exam in the same year they take the course, rather than making them wait until their junior or senior year.  Of course that’s reasonable! – and everyone patted themselves on the back accordingly for making the change.

But here’s my question: was what those students learned in their freshman Biology course important, or wasn’t it?  If it really is important – so important that it’s required for graduation – shouldn’t students still remember and be able to use it two years later?  Otherwise, what was the point?  This is the message we appear to be sending to students: memorize as much of this stuff as you can, regurgitate it as quickly as possible, and then forget it so you can go on to the next thing.  This is learning?

And now to the more current example: last week the PA House unanimously (!) passed compromise legislation - compromise is good, no? -  that establishes a new system for evaluating public school employees that uses student performance as a rating factor.

Sound reasonable?  Let’s look at some details. “For non-teaching professional employees, the bill requires 20% of their overall rating to be based on student performance.”

So to be clear: how well the school’s students do on their PSSAs will be 20% of the evaluation for school nurses, guidance counselors, etc.. Are you kidding me?  (Think Lewis Black as you read this.) Could they not come up with anything less relevant?

Here’s another detail: For teachers, the bill requires 50% of their rating to be based on student performance; 15% of which will be based on building level data, including things such as the PSSAs, the school’s graduation rate and AP course participation. By what shred of logic should individual teachers be evaluated based on the performance of students they have never met?

Allow me to make a point that should be obvious: teachers in schools that have the resources to offer more AP classes, and where the graduation rate is consistently in the upper 90s (such as State College) are therefore, by definition better teachers than those that teach in more challenging circumstances?

Let’s consider the unintended  (one would hope!) consequences. You’re a teacher looking for a job.  You have a choice: A) you can work in a ‘good’ school, where you are relatively well-paid, the students are relatively focused on learning, and where you are more likely to receive good evaluations – based on overall school performance - resulting in greater job security, or B) you can work in a struggling school, for less pay, where your job evaluation will be pulled down by the school’s overall test scores and you are at risk of being fired every year.  Where would you go?

Just as importantly, school A has ten applicants for every position, while school B has to take whoever they get.  Needless to say, the primary difference between school A and school B is the relative wealth of the respective communities. Under this proposal, we are institutionalizing a scheme in which the rich continue to get richer…

I haven’t even addressed the issue of statistical reliability.  (Does no one understand statistics?)  Based on the evidence so far, the use of student ‘achievement’ data results in wild fluctuations in individual teacher evaluations from year to year. We might be better off using a dartboard – at least then, the randomness would be apparent to everyone.

What will be the impact on teacher morale of this nonsense – and what will be the impact of that, on the kids?  Finally, is there anyone – anyone? – who believes the PSSAs measure more than a tiny sliver of what is important in student learning?

This proposal is either A) dumb as rocks, or B) an incredibly devious and dishonest attack on the very idea of public education. Honestly, I am somewhat torn between the two options. (As they used to say, “just because you’re paranoid…”)

p.s. One other provision of this legislation would permit non-education professionals to be school superintendents. Now, there’s a swell idea.