School Leader

Teacher stress and school reform: It's about leadership

This year's MetLife Survey of the American Teacher was recently released and results indicate lots of teachers and principals feel stressed out on a daily basis and teacher job satisfication is on the decline.  Edu-bloggers who are put out with the pace and direction of school reform efforts blame the implementation of the Common Core, or the focus on accountability, or overhauls of teacher evaluation systems, or "reform" in general (see Anthony Cody, who never saw a reform he liked, for an example).

I wouldn't read too much into the MetLife survey, for a couple of reasons.

First, there's no real surprise that educators are stressed out.  The challenges of teaching and school leadership have never been greater.  The public has never had higher expectations for their schools - and rightly so.  To blame reform efforts is to suggest that education was better back in the 1970's when teachers were less stressed - and when we just happily accepted the fact that vast majorities of our students would drop out or graduate with no meaningful knowledge or skills.

Second, it's important to look at the entire breadth of data in the MetLife study, and not just fluctuating levels of teacher job satisfaction.  For one thing, a full 82% of teachers reported that they are "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with their jobs.  I'd call that a pretty impressive statistic for an industry that has faced an unprecedented level of pressure to improve.  What's more, early career teachers - those without the protection of tenure and with the most to learn - seem the most happy in their jobs.  That seems pretty inconsistent with the conclusion that all this talk of education reform is undermining teacher satisfication, much less teacher effectiveness.  (For a thorough analysis of the MetLife survey from this perspective, see RiShawn Biddle's commentary here and here).

In my own experience, early career teachers are the most enthusiastic about reaching all students and largely embrace the "no excuses" philosophy that schools can - and must - change.  This is promising for the future of school improvement efforts.

Ultimately, school leaders hold the responsibility for simultaneously creating supporting structures and insisting on continuous improvement of teaching practice.  Teachers might be more stressed than necessary because school leaders have failed to prioritize improvement efforts, establish a clear framework for effective teaching, or provide meaningful feedback and support so teachers can actually transform their practice.  Leaders who are serious about this should read three books: Mike Schmoker's Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Achievement; Marzano, Frontier, and Livingston's Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching; and Rick Hess's just-released wonder-book, Cage-Busting Leadership (which I hope to review on this blog in coming weeks).

These authors provide an excellent roadmap for effective instructional leadership.  And good leadership can enhance teacher satisfaction, even when the stakes for improvement are high.

What Ravitch Gets Wrong, Part II

In the first installment of this two-part review of Diane Ravitch's book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, I gave credit to Ravitch for raising many important questions about the misuse of standardized testing and its impact on classroom practice.  While educators perpetuate many myths about the evils of testing, Ravitch makes a good case that we have indeed gone overboard in this respect, with many negative consequences for our schools and students.

But Ravitch makes a mistake in equating testing and accountability with the movement for school choice.  While there is considerable overlap between the two camps, they are not the same and conflating the two distorts the basic case for both.

As I noted in my first post, the case for school choice is based, in part, on the argument that public education as we know it is fundamentally flawed.  Not that it has no redeeming qualities.  There are many excellent public schools throughout the U.S.  But Ravitch and defenders of the educational status quo seem blind to the fact that millions of children are being grossly underserved by government-run schools, which are the only option for most families of modest means. 

History attests that monopolies - especially government monopolies - are not capable of the kinds of innovation, efficiency and improvement necessary if we are going to prepare future generations for the economic realities of the 21st century.  There is no reason to assume that the "great American school system" of Ravitch's title ever existed, or that throwing more money into the system with no mechanisms of accountability as Ravitch suggests will garner different results.

So while I share Ravitch's concerns about the misuse of testing, I heartily disagree with her proposed solutions and her emphatic mischaracterization of school choice, which she repeatedly frames as a "corporate" approach to education.

Ravitch and her allies must have done market research revealing that Americans have a basically negative attitude toward "corporations" (however they conceive of this word), and use this term to demonize those who advocate for school choice. 

Depending on how the enabling legislation is written, some schools of choice might indeed be run by for-profit entities, but just as many might be operated by churches, non-profits, or independent agencies.  Ravitch herself expresses admiration for Catholic schools, and in many communities (see Indiana's recent voucher program), Catholic schools - not for-profit corporations - are the leading providers for schools of choice.  It is reasonable to assume that in a genuine choice environment, a wide variety of schools offering a plethora of learning environments and approaches -- Montessori, career-based, STEM-focused, classical education, etc. - could be available to all families.  Some might be operated by corporations, but many would not.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong with for-profit outfits providing educational alternatives.  Innumerable for-profit vendors already provide a myriad of products and services to our schools.  The fact that education is a human service does not automatically mean that people who seek profits cannot provide high-quality schooling options.  (My doctor makes a healthy profit every time I see him, and I do not begrudge it as I value the service he provides).  The real measure is whether the school's client families feel they are getting a good value.

And this is another fundamental point that Ravitch and many other school choice opponents seem to miss.  Just like traditional public schools, some schools of choice will be successful, while others will fail.  The difference is that schools of choice that fail to satisfy their clients will go out of business, whereas failing public schools will continue to drain millions of dollars of taxpayer money forever.  School choice is not a panacea for all of education's problems, but it gives many families something they can only dream of under the current system: an option.

Ravitch's tendency to associate all choice advocates with the push for standardized testing and paint them all with a "corporate" label grossly oversimplifies the great diversity in the education reform movement and among school choice supporters in general.  Anyone even remotely familiar with choice proponents like Michelle Rhee, RiShawn Biddle, Neal McCluskey, Michael Petrilli, and Rick Hess will know that, while all of these scholar/activists might accept the label "reformer," they represent an array of different perspectives and frequently spar with one another over policy, strategy, and goals. Lumping them all together serves Ravitch's rhetorical purpose of painting school choice in the most negative light possible and represents one of the most potentially destructive aspects of her work. 

One of the things that struck me about The Death and Life of the Great American School System was the relatively measured, thoughtful, and respectful way Ravitch addressed her philosophical opponents.  This contrasts markedly with the rhetoric Ravitch uses on her blog, and in many of her articles and public comments, where she frequently engages in name-calling and demonization of anyone who disagrees with her.  I experienced this first hand when Ravitch dismissed me as a sexist when I used the word "hysterical" to describe opponents of a particular Gates-funded research study.  I noted then, and assert still, that such tactics are intellectually lazy and serve the purpose of cutting off meaningful debate and discussion of ideas.

Ravitch is influential, and her tendency for mischaracterizing and demonizing opponents has rubbed off on the whole anti-"reform" camp.  For evidence, see Anthony Cody's recent article alleging to contrast the "no excuses" (i.e., testing and choice) reformers (the bad guys) with the "social context" reformers like himself and Ravitch (the good guys).  Cody's description of the "no excuses" reformers presents a cartoon-like image of the diverse body of educators, activists and scholars who seek to make sweeping changes in the structure of American schooling.  As I noted in comments to Cody's article, thoughtful discussion between the two "camps" cannot even begin as long as the "social context" reformers refuse the acknowledge the nuance, complexity, and diversity of arguments on the other side. 

This, to me, is the fundamental flaw in Ravitch's work, the seeds of which are sown throughout The  Death and Life of the Great American School System.  While many of her philosophical opponents, including me, can appreciate the value of Ravitch's arguments and the indispensible case she makes about testing, she affords no such respect to the other side.  This is a great disappointment, given Ravitch's brilliance as a historian and the relevance of her concerns, as the only prospect for real progress in American education lies in our capacity to recognize what public schooling does well, what it cannot, and how it can be remade.  Ravitch has chosen to position herself as an opponent of the debate itself.

KASA summer scholarships available for aspiring administrators

The Kentucky Association of School Administrators, in collaboration with Jostens, is offering two generous scholarships for graduate students in educational administration for Summer 2013.

The KASA/Josten's Tomorrow's Leader Scholarship is for KASA members (join here) who are currently enrolled in a Kentucky university administrator preparation program.  Tomorrow's Leader pays for two three-hour summer courses, textbook reimbursement, and a $3,000 travel stipend.  Applicants must submit two letters of recommendation and a  300-500 word essay. Winners must agree to remain an active or associate member for at least one year after receiving the scholarship. Application due April 15.  Click here to obtain more information and application materials.

KASA also offers a 2012 Aspiring Administrators Summer Scholarship covering one three-hour course for any aspiring administrator (KASA membership not required).  Three letters of recommendation are required. Application deadline April 15.  Follow this link for more details and to apply.

KASA is the premier professional organizational for school leaders in Kentucky.  Visit their website here.

What Ravitch Gets Wrong, Part I

Almost a year ago a close colleague gave me a copy of Diane Ravitch's book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education.  He had just read this book and was enthusiastic about it, and knowing that I was a proponent of school choice, my colleague thought my perspective might be enriched by hearing Ravitch's argument.

I was aware of the basic outline of Ravitch's work, and her public shift from identifying with the "education reform" movement to becoming its ardent foe.  Over the year that it's taken me to read the book and gather my thoughts about it, I've become much more familiar with Ravitch, even wrangling with her publicly on the pages of my blog and hers.  What I have found is that, while she makes some thoughtful and powerful arguments that definitely need to be aired in our on-going national discussion about education, ultimately Ravitch misunderstands the point of school choice, mistakenly conflates it with the industry's testing obsession, and ultimately mischaracterizes her opponents in a way that poisons the possibility for meaningful dialogue on one of the most important issues of our day.

In this post I'll mostly discuss why Ravitch's book is important and what it has to offer, and in a subsequent post I'll discuss what's missing in her argument, and is even hostile, to real school reform.

While I disagree with Ravitch profoundly on many points, I do recommend this book.  Informed educators and parents will benefit from Ravitch's insights and her rich, narrative history of education reform in the United States.  The Life and Death of the Great American School System:

• Presents a succinct, clear, and mostly fair account of the origins of the school choice movement, and the admittedly mixed research on outcomes from students who attend voucher or charter schools. 
• Accurately recounts the myriad failures of NCLB, which will be familiar and affirming to frustrated educators everwhere. 
• Describes in great detail the frequently clumsy attempts by various urban school districts to improve teaching and learning, experiments that often involved rigid, autocratic approaches that alienated teachers and parents, and often garnered meager results.
• Identifies a core group of fantastically wealthy philanthropists who have contributed millions of dollars to fund some of the most sweeping school reform initiatives.
• And makes a compelling case for why standardized testing is an extremely limited measure of student learning.

It is this last point that, above all others, makes Ravitch's entire argument worth hearing, both in this book and in her writing as a whole.  Ravitch explains how using simple test scores to make judgments about the performance of individual teachers and schools is a patently unfair misuse of these assessments, and how the test-driven culture of schools contributes to cheating, an intense narrowing of the curriculum, and ultimately the demise of rigorous instruction.

In light of all this, Ravitch advocates an about-face in terms of education policy.  She rejects federal school accountability measures as they have been configured under the last two or three presidents and all school choice schemes (education reforms use test scores to bash public education in an effort to ultimately privatize schooling in general - or something like that).  Instead, Ravitch calls for a renewed focus on standards, improved instructional practice, higher salaries for teachers, and more money for struggling schools.

I find myself nodding in agreement to many of her agruments.  As I've written elsewhere, standardized tests are one of the least instructionally sensitive measures of student learning and teacher performance, and schools' perpetual testing obsession frequently leads to disastrous consequences.  I agree wholeheartedly that improving schools depends, in large part, on our ability to establish a guaranteed and viable curriculum, and in improving teaching practice in the everyday classroom. 

But for all of the flaws in current education policy, there is still a compelling need for school choice and for the wholesale remaking of American education.

Ravitch rarely acknowledges that our schools are, by nearly any measure (not even including test scores) failing vast swathes of American children.  And states (like Kentucky) have been busy trying to standardize curricula and improve teaching practice for decades now, often with very little to show for their efforts.  Many schools seem impervious to change or improvement and throwing vast sums of money their way is simply not working.  Ravitch is essentially a defender of the educational status quo: unions and tenure are not the problem; our schools would just be fine if politicians left us alone, if we paid teachers better and gave them a good curriculum, and if we poured more money into helping these poor kids who have such a difficult time learning. 

Where is the evidence this would lead to improved schools?  Ravitch is adamant that there is no empirical data to suggest that school choice would improve student learning.  Where is the empirical evidence that her proposals would either?

Just yesterday, Kentucky education commissioner Terry Holliday issued a scathing indictment of the Jefferson County Schools, the state's largest district, where 16 of 18 low-performing high schools have essentially made no progress after years and years of intensive supports and millions of dollars in school improvement money.  Note that this assessment is not based on test scores, but rather on a comprehensive audit of the school's culture, curriculum, instruction, and leadership capacity.  These schools have had every opportunity to improve the way Ravitch thinks they could and should and they have failed.

And what is to happen to the children who are forced to attend these schools?  Commissioner Holliday called it "academic genocide."  And that is the status quo in far too many schools.

In a follow up post, I'll respond further Ravitch's ideas, arguing that school choice is not incompatible with some of her points, and that it is, in fact, the only viable way to bring innovation, efficiency, and lasting change to the school improvement process.

Montessori in public schools

I was delighted to receive an email message yesterday from Trevor Eissler, author of Montessori Madness: A Parent to Parent Argument for Montessori Education.  Trevor had discovered my blog posts on Montessori learning, including my review of his book, and pointed me toward a relatively new organization called The National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector.

The Center, which is affilitated with the American Montessori Society (AMS), is an effort to promote the Montessori method in public school environments.  The Center's website provides a wealth of resources which I strongly recommend to other educators interested in this unique, student-centered approach to learning.  Some highlights:

• FAQ's on the differences between Montessori and more conventional methods of education and a useful one-page handout, "Students at the Center; Structure at the Forefront."
• Research on Montessori and student outcomes. 
• A map of public school Montessori programs in the U.S., profiles of select schools, essential elements of successful public Montessori schools, and a look at how the Montessori curriculum correlates with the Common Core Standards.

I must confess, as I shared with Trevor, that I am a bit skeptical about the capacity of traditional schools to faithfully implement the Montessori method (admittedly, I've grown pessimistic about the structures of public schooling in general).  I'm worried about schools that might try some half-baked version of Montessori ("Monte-something," as Trevor called it), see it fail, and then (like so many other poorly-implemented initiatives, say, "We tried that and it didn't work" (or worse, "It won't work with these kids").

But I applaud the efforts of public schools that are trying to faithfully bring the Montessori method to diverse populations of students, and the Center's goal is to promote authentic presentations of Montessori in public school environments.  In fact, until we have meaningful school choice options available to families of modest means, I am as enthusiastic about this endeavor as just about anything still contained in the structures of public education, and I'm eager to learn more and share what I can with other educators. 

Kentucky presently has three public school Montessori programs, all in the Jefferson County Public Schools.  I'm hoping to pay a visit to these schools in upcoming weeks.  In observation of international Montessori Education Week, February 25-March 1, I'll be writing more on this topic.

I also encourage parents and practicing and aspiring educators to visit Bowling Green's only Montessori elementary option currently available.  In its first year of operation, The Montessori School of Bowling Green's elementary program, 506 State Street, serves 13 children ages six through twelve.  Visitors are welcome, and especially during Montessori Education Week, the school invites observers.  Educators will be most impressed by the thoughtful strategies of differentiation and individualization of learning that are basic to the Montessori method.  Call the school at 846-1122 to schedule a visit, or contact me for more information.