Let districts decide on Race to the Top
It’s not surprising that Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and Gov. Schwarzenegger’s secretary of education, Bonnie Reiss, are ambivalent about reapplying to Race to the Top. You can sense the dread in between their words.
California ranked 27th out of 40 states in the first round; having gone through one knock-down over reforms, the Legislature is in no mood to go through another. Districts that didn’t sign up the first time won’t change their minds. The California Teachers Association isn’t about to encourage them. And it will take a huge amount work to make the state’s application competitive – if that’s even possible, given glaring faults that judges pointed out.
But before pulling out, state officials should at least consider a very different direction: building up by scaling back.
Forget the consensus approach that led to vague promises and escape hatches for districts that the judges saw through. Approach a core of districts that have proven they’re open to change: Long Beach, San Francisco, Fresno, Oakland, Sacramento. Add in the dozens of charter schools that signed up in the first round and throw in a few districts with open-minded unions, like San Jose Unified, and pockets of Los Angeles Unified, where teachers are recreating their own schools.
Get superintendents and union reps in a virtual room and ask them whether they’d be willing to go further and be bolder. Ask if they’d be willing, among many options, to:
- Waive layoff and hiring rules for schools facing restructuring in order to keep good teachers who’d otherwise be laid off;
- Agee to incentives to attract the best teachers to the worst schools;
- Throw out the current perfunctory teacher and principal evaluations and, together with teachers, write new ones that move good teachers up and bad teachers out;
- Analyze which teaching credentialing programs produce effective teachers and steer away from those that don’t;
- Trade a pay system based on years of service and advanced degrees for a system that honors teachers for hard work, leadership and the performance of their students; then, agree to go to voters in those districts with a parcel tax to pay for the raises;
- Change their high school curriculums to build in career academies with apprenticeships for most students.
If they agree in principle to these and other ideas, then go ahead with a second-round application, knowing that two weak areas of the state’s application – turning around failing schools and developing and retaining good teachers – would be vastly improved.
Would that be enough to move California up to the final 15 or so states that would get money? It’s hard to say. As Stanford emeritus education professor Michael Kirst, a judge in the first round of applications (though not of California) observed, there are 30 categories for awarding points in Race to the Top. A few points here, some tinkering there, could quickly add up, if the state were strategic. A detailed analysis could determine that.
California would still lose major points because it’s way behind in creating and using a statewide student data system (and falling father behind if it doesn’t get the new system fixed in a hurry). And there could be no denying that most districts and local unions wouldn’t sign on; the state would be dinged for that. But it could also argue credibly that the reform districts and charter schools still would comprise more students than in many states and that the best way to effect change in California is by example.
Finally, the state shouldn’t be greedy. With fewer districts, the state should ask for less than the $700 million maximum for a large state. There still will be plenty of dollars for the state to implement goals in the first application: create formative assessments for all districts to adopt; establish a training program for principals, an alternative credentialing program for STEM teachers, and regional centers for collaboration.
Schwarzenegger, O’Connell and State Board of Education Ted Mitchell may decide, in the end, that the odds are too long. But before folding their hand, they ought to let districts decide whether to up the ante.
John’s think tank solutions may sound good to some, but in reality they are simply more of the simple solutions and naïve notions that the Obama administration is proposing to “fix” schools in America.
A few reasons why.
1. Deciding who the good teachers are would not be easy. Who would make this decision? What would it be based on? How would this be worked out without a counterproductive fight? How would favoritism and friendships, etc. be kept out of the mix? Who would want to teach in a school where job security was at the whim of the current principal? Anyone who has actually been a teacher knows why these and other issues would be difficult or impossible to work out in an equitable manner.
2. Incentives to attract teachers to the worst schools. What incentives? How much? California does not have money to waste on the notion teachers would go to these schools for more money. Few teachers go into the profession to get rich. Most teachers seek a good, safe school that is rewarding to teach at. Why would good teachers want to go to schools where they may be fired from because the school is deemed low performing? Obama’s “reforms” are counterproductive to attracting teachers these “low performing schools”.
3. Quality control and evaluations at most school districts are spotty. Most principals do not have the time to perform adequate evaluations and/or they are not skilled in evaluation. Effective quality control takes a commitment of time and money. Both of these are in short supply. The Toledo Peer Assistance and Review Program is a fine program that addressing the issue.
4. The teacher credentialing system is a mess. The state has made it far too difficult and expensive to obtain a teaching credential. For example, the current system requires a person to student teach for one year in order to earn a credential. One must pay a year’s college tuition to work and train at a school for free. An apprentice system that would allow a person to make some wages would be much better.
5. Merit pay may sound good, but it seldom brings the results sought after. Most workers do not believe the extra pay is based on merit. It is usually divisive and counterproductive. Merit pay works best in think tanks and ivory towers. In the real world it is usually a failure and a waste of precious resources.
6. Changing high school curriculums to build career academies with apprenticeships for most students. Great idea. It goes against the current state educational philosophy that every student should be prepared for college. Building all this does cost money. Where will it come from?
In conclusion, simple solutions like firing all the “bad” teachers and principals, and hire only “good ones”, merit pay, close the low performing schools, and prepare all students for college or career sound good, but do not address the lacking essentials. It would be wiser to address the real essentials to good schools, willing learners, a safe supportive environment, good teachers, administrators, and support staff, small classes, adequate facilities, the necessary tools, and supportive parents and community. A better plan would address how to foster more willing learners, create safer and supportive schools, improve the recruitment and retention of teachers, administrators, and support staff by making the job more fulfilling, provide smaller classes and the necessary tools, and help to increase community and parental support.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
On Stephen’s question about paying teachers more to teach in harder to staff schools – people get paid more for more difficult jobs in just about every profession. And it works. Teaching is a glaring exception in which the opposite is more often the case.
As for where the money could come from, we already pay teachers more for certain things like obtaining arbitrary advanced degrees, just not anything that is shown to help kids learn. At some point it would be nice to see some of that money go towards things that might actually boost student achievement.
On your counter suggestions, how do you systematically “foster willing learners”? Based on what I think you mean, I appreciate the concept, agree it’s valuable and think a lot of good teachers do it. But it’s a tough thing to measure and basically impossible to mandate.
Great schools are all about great teachers connecting with kids. There are certainly are some intangible things that make this work at the local level and they don’t necessarily look the same from one school to the next. There are however tangible things that data clearly show work and government has the ability to help schools make happen. John’s post focuses things a wholesale reform plan can actually address and that have the potential to make a big difference for our kids.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
We already have examples of teachers being paid more to work in “tough” areas … and it doesn’t really work. At the end of the day, an extra $10,000 a year is not going to make teachers stay in a job where they feel powerless and unappreciated, let alone abused (by any combination of students, parents, or administrators).
And when those raises mean fewer teachers for more students, again, it’s not always clear that it’s worth the money.
Where are the measures for helping parents to get involved with school and education? What about funding for parenting classes centered around schools? Perhaps make computer labs available after hours to the community.
These “tough” schools end up in program improvement, where the teachers are micromanaged to the minute, where there is little time or opportunity for innovation.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity