Charter Elementary Success in Watts: Recipe for Acheivement

December 30, 2005 Via Joanne Jacobs, we learn of a success story in Los Angeles. The Watts Learning Center (WLC), a K-5 charter school serving "nearly all African American and low income" students, has dramatically raised the achievement of its students. For the Pacific Research Institute, Lance T. Izumi writes:

In the Pacific Research Institute’s recent book, Free to Learn: Lessons from Model Charter Schools, high-performing charter schools were found to have a number of common characteristics. These schools featured good management, high expectations for students and staff, and a rigorous curriculum based on state academic standards. They also used test results as diagnostic tools to address student weaknesses and chose teaching methods based on what really improved student performance. One finds all these critical characteristics at WLC.

Emphasis ours. Let's parse the list of characteristics (which doesn't include "increased funding" as conventional wisdom would have you believe):

Good Management: You'll rarely find a high-performing school without a strong principal. Charter schools usually have their own board of trustees, so these must support the principal as well. Even though the principal probably doesn't teach a single class, she sets up the school environment so that the teachers can be at their best. When excellent teachers are backed up by their administrators, it forms an unbeatable team.

High Expectations for Students and Staff: Students are like clay in the hands of an artist. The most effective teachers know that holding students to high expectations is necessary for achievement (whereas less effective teachers think that high expectations only lead to more failure). But staff members must also pass muster with high standards, led by the principal.

Rigorous Curriculum based on State Academic Standards: The key word here is rigorous. Elementary schools don't have the handy excuse for failure that middle schools and high schools have: "they came to our school unprepared." So when an elementary school fails to teach children basic skills, it is usually due to fuzzy curriculum and standards. Push students hard, and they'll reward your effort by meeting your expectations.

Using Test Results as Diagnostic Tools: But tests are supposed to be evil, right? Actually, the best performing schools (most especially those serving "at-risk" populations) use tests as their allies. If students do poorly on standardized tests, less effective schools look for excuses, while more effective schools look at the breakdown of scores. They call it "disaggregating the data" and it just means using the test results as a road map for more focussed teaching.

Choosing Teaching Methods based on What Really Works: Surprisingly, few big public school districts are interested in "what really works" because their curriculum specialists are too busy trying to pick from a dozen new-fangled programs which are supposed to really work. These new programs have lots of colorful support materials, and glossy brochures describing how wonderful they are, yet often these new programs simply haven't had real-world success. It's not hard to find programs that really work (like the Open Court reading program which WLC uses), all you have to do is look towards schools which are currently enjoying success "despite the odds" and simply ask them what they're using. You don't need an overpaid curriculum specialist to tell you that.


Mr. Izumi writes, "WLC could not have achieved its success had it not been a charter school. Charters are deregulated public schools that trade freedom from rules for a guarantee of better student performance."

He's right, but why? Isn't it a sad state of affairs when public schools are so strangled by their own rules that they can't follow the five straightforward characteristics above? There's no reason why any public school or district couldn't learn from real-world success, especially success where nay-sayers say none is possible without more funding.

Success is possible anywhere with the right plan and the right people. Charter schools like WLC can show us the way.

Teacher Unions, Teacher Activism: Is anyone actually teaching?

December 29, 2005 On Wednesday we pointed out that while there's no "War on Public Education" there are a few areas which need serious reform. Pointed criticism of these areas leads some to believe that people are just "bashing" public education, which simply isn't true.

Today we have a few words on Teacher Unions and Political Activism. (In future articles we'll address Teacher Certification, Mediocrity, Opposition to Competition, Opposition to Home Schooling, Lack of Discipline and Safety, Zero Tolerance Run Amok, and Lack of Accountability.)

Teacher Unions: A major problem with public education today is the behavior of teacher unions. One problem is that they block the door to progress: if it doesn't "serve their membership" in the form of less work for more pay, they're not interested. Teachers often complain that they aren't respected, yet they happily join unions whose leadership is all too willing to conduct labor-union thuggery, the most common of which is extortion (in the form of labor strikes). Writes one conservative teacher, "Want to be treated like professionals? At least act the part."

America is a nation of diversity, where freedom of choice is cherished. Unless of course you choose not to join the teacher union, which will quickly make you a pariah, to say nothing of what will happen if you choose to go to work when the union decides to picket. (Who are those grown ups in that school? Those are "scabs." And those short people? Oh, those are students.) This is to say nothing of the fact that in some school districts, one must join the union to be hired to teach. Freedom of choice, indeed.

America is also a nation of entrepreneurs, where one has the potential to be rewarded in proportion to one's efforts. Except with public school teachers, where tenured deadwood teachers make more than crackerjack, dedicated first year teachers. More effort and even better results from individual teachers is not compensated, in fact "merit pay" is disparaged by the teacher unions, for it doesn't fit in with the whole "solidarity" theme. "Workers of the world..." yadda yadda.

Political Activism: Closely related to the issue of unions is activism by public school teachers, either in the classroom in the form of left-wing indoctrination, or by actually hauling students to show up in force at some noonday demonstration at City Hall (on a school day, natch). Teachers have an obligation to teach, not to indoctrinate a captive audience.

Students have no choice to be their pupils, but teachers definitely have a choice to not publicize their own political views. When we were in elementary school, there was a teacher who, on the day after a Presidential election, was asked who she voted for. After all, it was a moot point, since the election was a done deal. But she simply declined to answer. What a class act.

Another good example is Thomas Sowell's recounting his time teaching economics. Early in his life, the story goes, he viewed himself as a radical Marxist. But as he grew, both in terms of academics as well as maturity, he realized that Marxism was not the right path, and he became a supporter of the free market. Later in his academic career he was teaching an economics course which contained a significant unit on Marxism, which he taught "by the book." One student approached him later and asked Sowell what his personal views of Marxism were, and he recalls that that was the highest praise anyone could have given him.

No one is denying that teachers have opinions of their own. No one is trying to suppress teachers' free speech, despite claims to the contrary. For the sake of the students, just teach, okay?

Activism by Unions: The unhealthy activity of unions and activism by teachers in their classrooms are bad enough, what's worse is the activism by the teacher unions. Unions are analogous to government agencies supported by tax dollars. Taxpayers don't have a choice whether or not to pay taxes, which opens the door to abuse by government, for it can spend freely, regardless of the will of the people. As it is with unions.

Presumably, unions collect a percentage of teacher wages as dues, and then spend that money fighting for teacher rights and negotiating teacher contracts. So why do teacher unions spend obscene amounts of money in the political realm, almost all of it in support of Democratic candidates or left-wing causes?

Since when did becoming a teacher make one march in lockstep with the Democratic Party? Teacher union members make up more delegates to the Democratic National Convention than any other group, even though there are conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans who serve as public school teachers. (They just have learned to bite their collective tongues.)

A visit to the websites of the NEA and AFT make it clear where they stand on a number of non-academic issues. For example, the NEA has opinions about Social Security (they oppose letting people invest their own money, rather it should remain in the hands of the government--which coincidentally is exactly the same approach favored by Democrats) and Wal-Mart (which apparently is working to dismantle public schools). Meanwhile the AFT chimes in on health-care workers (apparently Congress is considering making them more vulnerable to tuberculosis and anthrax) and CAFTA (they oppose free trade with Central America).

Sure there is probably some tenuous connection with public school teacher union members and all of those topics, but that in no way excuses the unions from spending forcibly-aquired dues monies in the attempt to guide policy which has little to do with educating kids.

But does the union even care what political positions their members hold? Well if it gives you any clue, California recently held a special election to vote on a series of initiaitives, one of which was Proposition 75. It simply would require public employee unions to get members' consent if they plan on spending dues monies on political action. Sounds very democratic (lowercase d), simply let the members agree or disagree. The teacher unions spent heavily--no irony here, the money they spent to defeat Prop. 75 came from the very members whom they had no intention of asking permission for anything--and the Proposition was defeated. Again, the union gives a one-finger salute to any members who hold opposing views.

Sometimes unions don't just spend heavily to defeat a proposition, but work hard to not even get the item on the ballot. Just this month Paul Jacob reports that the Oklahoma Education Association (a branch of the NEA) is fighting hard to prevent an initiative from even being presented to the voters. What could this controversial initiative be? It's simply a plan to cap government spending. Why would the OEA be opposed to that? Well, being that they represent public school teachers, they don't want any limit at all for public spending.

And what is the union doing to prevent the initiative from appearing on the ballot? By encouraging people to lie that they're being harassed by signature gatherers. In one case, a person saw a someone collecting signatures in front of a store, so he reported to the store manager that the initiative supporter had "cussed him out." Store security ran the guy off. Nothing like striking a blow for democracy.


Again, there is no war on public education. But there is a war against classroom indoctrination and teacher union thuggery.

Myth: There's a War against Public Education

December 28, 2005 An interesting exchange occurred recently online. Michelle Malkin posted a column called "Indoctrination, Not Education" containing the line "Reason number 95,385 to keep your kids out of government schools" and some folks took umbrage. Essentially her column simply contained two instances of students being subjected to the political biases of their teachers, with no commentary from Ms. Malkin other than the line quoted above.

But that one line was all some people needed to claim that she was "bashing public education and public school teachers," to quote but one line from Thespis Journal's fourteen hundred word response.

Thou dost protest too much.

The "War on Public Education" is a straw man. There is not, nor has there ever been, such a war. Any time spent defending against such a war is time that diverts much-needed time and energy away from the real issues of public education. Fighting against an imaginary enemy is a sad waste of resources.

If there's no war, then what's the fuss? Who are these imaginary soldiers? They're simply critics, who pointedly remind us of the the many facets of public education which can use serious reform. Which happens to be the entire point to Reform K12.

Now, anyone can be a critic, so we're not really concerned with hot air. We are very interested in the views and observations of intelligent peers who can contribute to the debate in a constructive way. Part of the debate is calling a spade a spade, shining a light on egregious examples of the misdeeds of public educators (and their unions), and aspects of the system of public education itself.

Yes, there are many public schools where excellence is part of the daily culture, where students are given the best chances to lead productive lives after graduation. There are countless public educators who nobly fight the good fight against ignorance and poverty, and who, despite terrible obstacles, defeat these foes daily.

But public school teachers are not martyrs, and we certainly aren't a homgenous group. It should not be offensive to the truly dedicated teachers among us to simply point out the ugly truth where it may lie. And these blemishes aren't just isolated in a system that is by far mostly good, they are endemic, especially in the poorest urban public schools.

To name but a few examples of serious issues, in need of reform: Teacher Unions, Political Activism, Teacher Certification, Mediocrity, Opposition to Competition, Opposition to Home Schooling, Lack of Discipline and Safety, Zero Tolerance Run Amok, and Lack of Accountability. We'll tackle each of these in the coming days.

It is important to note that many of these issues are less prominent in non-public schools, and even in public schools of choice such as charter schools. The simple fact is that when parents choose where to send Johnny, they choose the schools with the fewest problems. This is not an option with many public schools, since parents must take what the government gives them. If you live at a certain address, and your child is in a particular grade, then your child has been assigned to a particular public school. Of course parents who can afford to send Johnny to private school don't have this problem, which is why vouchers are so important for the poor.

This brings us back to Ms. Malkin's comment. She referred to the multiple reasons why not to send Johnny to government schools. There's a very good reason why she didn't use the phrase "public school" for she was talking about schools where choice isn't an option. You simply take what the government gives you. (Remember, charter schools are public schools, and she wasn't criticizing them.)


While there are many valid criticisms of public school policies and procedures, these ultimately stem from decisions made by people, thus any serious effort at reform must begin there.

There are four kinds of teachers and administrators staffing public schools. First, there are dedicated teachers and administrators who are effective. Second, there are dedicated folks who aren't. Third, there are people for whom "it's just a job," and who therefore aren't effective. Lastly, and most seriously, there are incompetent teachers and administrators.

Teachers and administrators in the first group should take no offense at any criticisms of the other three groups, rather, they should be leading the charge for reform. The second group, dedicated public school employees who for some reason aren't effective (due to curriculum or techniques), can be taught how to have a real impact, through mentoring and professional development. Members of the third group, the dead wood, need to be weeded out of the profession. And the incompetent folks in the last group need to be fired, period.


There's no war against public education, there's simply the desire to have effective schools filled with dedicated, capable teachers and administrators. No one should take offense to that.

ATESLA: Test every kid, every year.

December 23, 2005 Standardized testing in K-12 classrooms, especially as mandated by states' compliance with No Child Left Behind, is roundly criticized. While many of these criticisms are way off the mark (testing is racist, unfair, or just plain evil, testing doesn't measure the worth of a child), we feel that the way comparative testing is done currently (as we wrote yesterday) is seriously flawed.

Our solution? Have more frequent testing, measuring every child each year.

While it may seem strange to deal with the problems of testing by having more of it, we're completely serious. Of course if every child were tested each year using the same expensive tests as currently in use today, the cost would skyrocket. Thus we recommend ditching the longer tests (with their open-ended responses which are so expensive--and subjective--to grade) for the time-proven shorter tests such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, which can be administered in a few hours.

So we propose the ATESLA model for the use of standardized testing in schools: Annual Testing of Every Student with Longitudinal Analysis.

Annual Testing: No explanation should be needed here, since this is an aspect of current standardized testing. But what we propose isn't just annual testing, but annual testing of every child. So tests need to be streamlined to reduce costs, and made homogenous through all the grades a child is in a particular school, to permit valid comparisons.

Every Student: Current testing strategies take a cross-section of students, for example 5th, 8th, and 11th, and measure them each year. This makes the data nearly meaningless to analyze year-over-year, for last year's 8th graders and this year's 8th graders are apples and oranges. A far better method would be to test every child each year, for that permits the far more meaningful longitudinal analysis.

Longitudinal Analysis: Simply put, longitudinal analysis is the measurement of change over time, which is a perfect fit for schools, which are supposed to be developing students' knowledge and skills over time. It is amazing that this form of analysis is rarely used by states and schools.

The simple reality is that states and schools don't often consistently measure every child every year, using the same brand of test each year. In other words, children might be tested every year, but using different assessments, which cannot be compared. For example, in Philadelphia over the span of just a few years students were tested using the SAT-9, the TerraNova, and the PSSA, none of which is correlated with one another. What a wasted opportunity.

Rather, if the same assessment were used each year, multiple avenues of analysis become available. (By "same assessment" we mean the same brand of test, by one publishing company, most of which are available in multiple forms for all the grades in elementary through high school.) Three of these avenues are: Analysis by Cohort, Analysis by Teacher, and Analysis by Student, discussed below. In each case the basic comparison will be year-over-year, relating last year's scores to this year's. The big question will be "how much of a gain did the students make in one year?" More ambitious analyses can be done over spans of multiple years, but the ideal window is one school year.

Analysis by Cohort: By cohort we mean the same class of students (as in "Class of 2008") as it moves through the school from year to year. One year they're freshmen, next they're sophomores, et cetera. Simply average all the 9th grade scores from last year, and compare them with the 10th grade scores from this year, which is basically the same students. Sure, there will be some turnover and attrition, but for the most part the majority of the class will be the same sample of students. This is far better than comparing all 11th graders each year, which are most certainly not the same students.

Analysis by cohort will answer "big picture" questions such as, "How much growth have our 5th graders experienced in the past year?" Since each school will only have a handful of cohorts (depending on the grade range that the school serves), this makes an analysis the relative success of the school much easier to quantify with just a few numbers.

Analysis by Teacher: This is a very controversial idea, for it means taking all the students taught by one teacher, and averaging the change in scores year-over-year. In the elementary grades there probably would be one teacher per child (for reading and math). In later grades, where subjects are taught in periods by different teachers, then the math teachers can be differentiated from the reading teachers.

Any principal worth her salt, upon seeing the results from different teachers in her school, could plan for mentoring, professional development, or other forms of intervention to help the teachers with weaker scores. But the principal doesn't have to be "the heavy." In larger schools there will be a wider range of results, which can be an excellent opportunity for the math or English department to get together and share best practices, paying special attention to what's going on in the top teachers' classrooms. Without bothering the principal, the department head could take charge, banding the department together to work to raise achievement.

In our experience the failure of many schools is not due to rank incompetence (although we've seen plenty of that), rather it's due to either unfocussed efforts, or focussed efforts in the wrong direction (for example by the use of ineffective progressive education techniques). Longitudinal achievement data, disaggregated by teacher, can help to sharpen a school's focus, towards effective practices which really show results. That shouldn't be controversial at all.

Analysis by Student: Is Johnny learning? How much is he learning? Are his scores rising steadily each year? Does Johnny need help in reading or math? All of these questions are easily answered by looking at the longitudinal data from Johnny's scores. "Ah, but Johnny already takes standardized tests each year," you say. True, but currently many of these score reports are only affixed to Johnny's school record in some file folder in some cabinet in some office. A yearly chore is to take the results from standardized tests (which literally come on sheets of stickers) and stick 'em to the student records.

Longitudinal analysis would be far more valuable than these stickering sessions, for no one usually looks at those stickers unless the student is referred for Special Education placement, or Johnny is transferred to another school. If longitudinal analysis is done right, it will span more than two years, giving a truer picture of Johnny's educational growth. That's what teaching and schools are all about.

Grade Equivalence (GE) Scores: Most of the common standardized tests such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills issue scores in multiple forms such as standard scores, stanines, and percentile ranks (compared locally and nationally). But a very user-friendly score is the "Grade Equivalent" score (GE), in years and months. A score typical of a 9th grade student in her 3rd month of school would be a GE of 9.3, which enables the reader to instantly see if a student (or a group of students) is on grade level or not. (For example, an 11th grader with a GE of 9.3 should raise eyebrows.)

Returning to our question of "how much of a gain did the students make in one year?" the Grade Equivalent scores make for excellent comparisons. If the tests are given each year at the same time (we'd prefer as late in the school year as possible, not March or April as is often done), then the two GE scores can simply be subtracted to find the change in score. For example, say last year the score was 4.7 (equal to a 4th grade student in the 7th month of school) and this year the score is 5.5. This gives us a difference of +0.8 which shows growth, to be sure, but growth of only 8 months after ten months of school! If this keeps up, the student will be a full year behind in five years.

If the GE scores were computed for every student, every year, and analyzed by cohort, by teacher, and by student, then there would begin to be true accountability in today's schools. Of course at the district or state level, the analysis could be by school as well. There may well be schools which give the students an increase in Grade Equivalence of +0.8 each and every year, which is like a six-cylinder engine running on only five. Any student who spends much time at that school will simply fall further and further behind.

Accountability: We've been teaching for years in the big city, and we've seen many, many schools which are not serving students well at all. They may care very deeply about their kids, and these schools usually are filled with a bunch of good-hearted people, yet somehow their students fail to meet reasonable standards of achievement. Amazingly, no one is held accountable for this failure. There are K-8 schools which fail to teach children to read fluently or do basic math, yet when faced with failing scores at either the 4th grade or 8th grade, they throw up their hands: "We have no idea how that happened!"

Longitudinal analysis would be able to show exactly where the problem is, which would help principals solve it. This analysis is only possible if every student were tested each year.

Annual testing. Every student. Longitudinal analysis. It's not rocket science!

Invasion of the Student Body Snatchers: A Statistical Lie Exposed

December 22, 2005 Picture a sleepy little public school at the end of your street. The students at that school, like all such schools, take standardized tests each year, and last year was no different. The student scores were all averaged, and the school was recognized for its level of academic performance.

But prior to this year's round of standardized testing, something shocking happened. Students were replaced. Not just a few, or even half, but well over 90% of the entire student body was replaced by a different group of students, a group which had a worse history of academic achievement than the original group.

This new, alien group of students (or pod-students) took the test in place of the former group, and no one in authority said anything, it was as if it were just business as usual.

When the scores came in--surprise--the average score was lower than it had been the year before. Instead of recognizing the statistical mismatch, the school was promptly chastised for declining in academic performance!

Believe it or not, this is a true story. What's even more bizarre is that the story is replicated like those creepy pod-people every year in states and cities across America, notably in every public and charter school in Pennsylvania.

What is going on here?

It's easy, really. Schools are measured by how their students do in certain targeted grades. In Pennsylvania, for example, schools are judged mainly by the PSSA scores of their 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 11th graders. The other grades are not assessed at the state level.

Every year a different crop of students is measured, as each passes under the magnifying glass. These students are inherently different, so of course there will be some variablility of the class's scores as a whole. Each year the scores will either tick up or tick down, but rarely will stay exactly the same.

For example, take 300 students in 11th grade, test them in reading, writing, and math. The following year, take 300 different 11th grade students and test them again. What are the chances that the measured average will be exactly the same? Somewhere between Slim and None, and Slim just left town.

Yet based on this simple (and simplistic) comparison, schools are declared to be "improving" or "declining." The measurement is a very important indicator for whether a school is meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for compliance with No Child Left Behind.

It's easy to blame the Feds, although the ire would be misplaced. According to the Federal Department of Education, under No Child Left Behind, states are supposed to be measuring every child, every year.

Measuring a group of students, and finding the mean of the data, is not a perfect measurement, as demonstrated by repeating the exact same measurement (what are the chances that every student will get the exact same score?) or by dividing the class into two random groups, and taking the mean of each. Chances are very good the means won't be identical.

Statisticians have known this for years! But what is shocking is that the folks doing the comparisons of these schools by comparing means of different populations of students either don't know the proper way to deal with such data, or don't bother. After all, it is very easy to just compare means.

Easy, but not terribly valid.

To Administrators: How to Deal with Subs

December 21, 2005 A few days ago we described the built-in difficulties substitute teachers have just doing their job, and we proposed that the discipline code have more of a bite in a classroom monitored by a sub. We'd like to make a few more suggestions based on experience.

Administrators can use these suggestions to make life easier for subs and, heaven forbid, help the school run more smoothly.

Welcome Packet: When subbing in Philadelphia we were often called to various high schools, and each was different in how they related to subs. One stands out in making subs feel welcome, with the simple use of a welcome packet.

It was a simple photocopied packet of about 5 pages, but it had everything a sub would need, answering all the typical questions. Everything from the bell schedule to bathroom locations was covered. Other items were a school map, instructions for lunchtime (with an open invitation to dine in the school's "model restaurant" staffed by students) including the location of nearby eateries, details of policies and procedures for situations that might come up during the day such as discipline issues, and the location of the faculty lounge.

It's a simple concept, really. All it takes is a little time and care to write such a packet, then it can be photocopied and used for years.

Class Roster: The vast majority of the times a substitute teacher is needed it's to cover one teacher's classes for an entire school day (usually due to absence). But what happens when the sub arrives at school? The roster chairman or a vice principal will grab a blank roster form and hastily scribble down a list of room numbers, or maybe names of classes. "Go here, here, and here. And here you get lunch."

There is so much more information that can be transmitted! Wouldn't it be better if the regular teacher communicated information about the classroom and classes, directly to the sub? All while in bed with a fever? It's possible, with a little September preparation.

For example, at the beginning of the school year a teacher can simply prepare a mini welcome packet of sorts, describing what is expected for the time the sub is covering classes. This can include common issues such as "Do not let students on the computer, no matter what they say" to "Students can use the dictionaries from the bookshelf by the window, but be sure they're returned at the end of the period."

In addition to general comments about classroom management (what's allowed and forbidden), this welcome sheet can also include a very brief description of the classes she teaches, and maybe references such as textbooks the students use for each class. This description can be written with a sub in mind, to simply help that person adjust to covering the teacher's classes. This doesn't have to be anything more than a simple description of the class subjects, and maybe a few words about what is expected of the sub for the length of the period.

A required part of the welcome sheet can be a simple copy of the teacher's class roster: what classes are taught in which period (with the bell schedule superimposed).

If this sounds complicated, it's not, and can all fit on one side of a sheet of paper. Teachers in all schools are usually expected to prepare "emergency lesson plans" in September, to be stored somewhere in the case of an unexpected absense. The preparation of this welcome sheet can be part of this requirement. Teachers who care about how things go in their room when a sub is needed will write more, while others might simply copy their class roster. Either way, it will be better than wasting someone's time hurriedly copying minimal roster information on the morning of a sub's arrival.

Class Lists: One of the biggest disadvantages subs face is not knowing students' names. Even worse is not knowing who's supposed to be in class! Both difficulties can be eased if complete class lists are supplied to the sub, for each period of the day. Again, here the regular teacher can help out by supplying a current seating chart for each group of students. More technologically-advanced schools might even have the ability to print "photo class lists" with every student's name and photo in each particular class.

Each school handles attendance slightly differently, but consistency on the day of a sub's service can help a great deal. For example, these class lists or seating charts can be used by the sub to take attendance and to note anecdotal comments regarding student behavior. Regular teachers can run their classes however they like, but it can be a school-wide policy that when a sub is in charge, the students sit in their assigned seats, and attendance is taken in every class.

Feedback: Students often take great advantage in the lack of communication between a regular teacher and a substitute (and vice versa). Students know the sub doesn't know the regular teacher's routines, so they try to pull the wool over the sub's eyes by suggesting all sorts of deviations: "But our regular teacher lets us!" is the common refrain. And the reverse is true, with students who normally behave suddenly "feeling their oats" when a sub is in town.

The first difficulty can be alleviated by the welcome packet/welcome sheet described earlier. The second can be solved by using some official form of feedback, so the sub can communicate with the regular teacher upon her return. All that's needed is a simple routine. Part of the packet a sub receives (for example in the seating chart or the attendance form) can be space for comments on how the class performed. When checking out in the afternoon the sub can turn this packet in to the office staff, which can then put it in the teacher's mailbox.

Buddy Teachers: Part of the problem with the teaching profession is "professional isolation." Teachers perform 95% of their duties as the only adult in the room, surrounded by children. Sure there are interactions with other adults outside of class, but these aren't always conducive for problem solving and professional collaboration. These effects are compounded for subs, who might not know anyone in the building, adult or not. At times it can feel like being a ghost, like a lost spirit having no effect on one's surroundings.

So we propose that other members of the school staff help out substitute teachers in the form of a little professional adult interaction.

This interaction probably won't come automatically, since everyone's busy doing their day-to-day job at the school, and people might not even know there's a sub for a particular teacher on a particular day. One idea is on the day of a sub's service, letting fellow staff members near the sub's classroom know that there's a sub. Interested parties could be the teachers in nearby classrooms, the "house coordinator" for that floor or wing, the vice principals, and the disciplinarian.

The message could be something like this: "Today Mr. Jones is out, and we have Ms. Smith as a sub. Could you stop by at some point today and see how she's doing? Thanks." Of course in this day and age of union contracts and work rules, you probably can't require anyone to stop by a sub's room. But if you ask, people usually want to help out, even on their prep or lunch periods.

The Free Market: In most places, subs don't have to take a particular job request, since many are simply "on call" and they can make themselves unavailable on a particular day. If substitute teachers can choose to serve in a certain school or not, why not make your school an inviting one? Everyone will benefit.

Server Problems! Please be patient.

December 19, 2005 Hello all (and welcome visitors from Number 2 Pencil)! There are apparently some issues with the NetCloak server which serves all the pages (all the articles and archives) except this one (any page ending in .NCLK), so basically the site will be down until it's fixed.

Thanks for your patience.

---

Update 9:30 PM EST: I've temporarily ditched NetCloak for plain-old HTML and rebuilt the site. This should be a temporary workaround, you can access all articles, just not the standalone items in the left-hand menu. Just don't bookmark anything! As soon as NetCloak is fixed, I'll switch back, so any bookmarks in the interim will be broken. (You can always bookmark ReformK12.com)

---

Update Tuesday, December 20, 2005: The NetCloak server has been fixed, and the site has been rebuilt. Everything looks like it's back to normal.

To Skip or Not To Skip (a grade)

December 17, 2005 Over at Number 2 Pencil, Kimberly Swygert reports of a friend who has a daughter in Kindergarten, but is academically advanced and socializes with kids older than her.

The public school at which she is due to start first grade next year has recommended to my friend that she be allowed to skip it altogether and start in second grade.

We're shocked that the public school would offer such a choice. Here in Philly we've heard from parents who've practically begged schools to permit their baby Einsteins to enter school in a higher grade than the child's birthdate indicates--apparently many schools are really strict with the birthdate cutoff--as if one's age measured to the exact day is any indication of development.

We say leave it up to the parent when their child can enter school, and at which grade.

Fortunately, in this case the school is giving the parents a choice, but since they're recommending the jump to second grade, we'd say take it! Of course the parents need to speak to the second grade teachers, and see what sorts of things are taught in the first few months, to be sure that their daughter won't have missed any critical lessons in reading or math.

The main reason why we say jump is to prevent boredom.

We've seen many kids who were simply bored with school act up to make things interesting. And many students, especially if they've been stimulated as a child in a book-filled home (and by being around older students), might have already learned a good deal of math and reading skills, so that attending first grade on schedule might just be a yawn.

Far better to challenge a precocious child.

---

Update: We found an entry in our archives from last year related to a public school's refusal to admit a child into second grade due to age restrictions: "News Flash: Same-age children aren't all the same!"

Yes, Dedicated Teachers Fail Kids

December 15, 2005 Via yesterday's Carnival of Education: 8th grade teacher PostHipChick wrote about her frustration at the lack of progress her students are making, writing "I did grades this week; almost exactly 50% of my students are getting F's in my classes."

She then wrote of the standing-on-one's-head efforts she's put into getting her charges to learn, and her chagrin at not having a more positive effect. From what we've read of her writings, she's a teacher with heart and soul, who cares deeply about her students, and truly tries her best.

Yet she blames herself for this failure:

But 50% getting F's? It is clear that I have failed as a teacher, because 50% is an F. Is this fair? Am I doing something wrong? Is there more I should be doing?

Our answer is simple.

All she needs to do is teach the class at the level of the students who are paying attention, to the best of her abilities, and grade her students fairly, according to her professional judgement. If this means that 50% of the class fails the marking period, then this simply means her students need to wake up and get on the ball.

Of course this plan will only work if her principal supports teachers who give more failing grades than commonly found in public schools. Without a supportive principal, there is nothing she can do to change the situation. If she lowers her standards then the kids will respond by lowering theirs even further. This death-spiral never has a happy ending.

But when teachers are given latitude to grade according to fair standards, letting the score distribution fall where it may, regardless of the numbers of failing students, then an interesting thing will happen, as shown in the following annecdote.

Years ago we met a Biology teacher at a high school in Philadelphia who had two score-distribution printouts on his wall. The plots were frequency distributions of his students' grades: one from the first marking period, the other from the second, and each looked like jagged bell-shaped curves. He proudly told us that he'd been teaching for decades and was very consistent with his standards and grading, holding kids to the same level of performance in both marking periods.

The bell curve in the second marking period was a full letter grade higher than the first.

So what changed? Not the teacher, this guy was a rock. Not the material, if anything it got harder later in the year (as most subjects are wont to do, knowledge being cumulative). There's only one answer: the students improved themselves.

One of our core principles is that students will become responsible only when given responsibility. Most likely many students slacked off in this teacher's Biology class first marking period, thinking that either the teacher would ease up, or that the grades would be scored "on the curve" or maybe they just thought, "There's no way this guy's gonna fail so many of us!" Chances are good that this is what experience had taught them in their years of public schooling.

But this teacher was unmoved, and in standing his ground he forced his students to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Of course if you let students fail on their own accord you have to "cover your back" to avoid charges of unprofessionalism. Experienced, dedicated teachers have no trouble here, for the key questions are easily answered yes:

• Did you teach the material thoroughly?
• Did you entertain questions regularly?
• Did you assign meaningful homework which would help the students learn the knowledge and skills necessary for mastery?
• Was this homework discussed or were students given feedback on how they're doing?
• Were the students given adequate notice and preparation before quizzes and tests?
• Did you offer students extra help or tutoring outside of class?
• Did you share progress reports with the student and parents?

Of course even the best teachers probably don't hit all these points all the time. But the best, most effective teachers do most of them, most of the time. If this is the case with PostHipChick, and we think it is, then she needs to assign failing grades to the failing students, without looking back.

One pernicious side-effect resulting from teachers of previous years passing students on regardless of skills is reflected in the following complaint:

You may (or may not) be shocked by how many 8th grade students need to be prompted into the most basic things, like what a noun is. I would say at least 75% of my students couldn't tell you right off the bat. A noun. Where have they spent the last nine years of their lives?

We know exactly where they've been for the last nine years. In crappy schools which profess to care about children but yet will invariably promote students each and every year regardless of any skills or knowledge attained.

There's no sane reason why a dedicated teacher should go along with such a farce. Grade your students fairly and they'll thank you later.

Fines Doubled in Work Areas: A Policy Idea for Substitutes?

December 14, 2005 At the start of our teaching career, we spent a short time substitute teaching in Philadelphia, before being hired as a full-time teacher. Since then we've been called upon scores of times to substitute for single periods during the school day (called "coverages") when a per diem sub cannot be found.

Substitute teaching in the inner city can be more like baby-sitting or supervised chaos than anything having to do with education. At times the entire period is spent praying to the time gods to help speed the rotation of the earth so freedom from just one particular group of little darlings can be granted.

We're reminded of our experiences by reading a substitute teacher's blog entries in Get Lost Mr. Chips (hat tip: Joanne Jacobs). Recent entries concern the plethora of electronics gadgets students bring to--and use in--class, and having to position his chair in a doorway to prevent the class from recreating Exodus. We've been there, and it isn't pretty.

It's enough to make one reconsider one's career, but does it have to be this way?

No. We wrote about a straightforward approach to school discipline last year in "The Solution to Discipline Problems: Empowered Administrators and Teachers," and here again is our four-bullet plan:

• Set reasonable and fair limits.
• Select consequences for violations of these limits.
• Communicate these guidelines clearly to students.
• Follow through: do exactly what you said you'd do when students test their limits.

If a school doesn't have discipline under control, then there's little hope for the substitutes, save for those special souls who have the gift of being urchin-whisperers.

Sure the teacher in the classroom is the "first-line defense" against classroom disruption, but substitutes have it especially tough, for several reasons.

First, they're on the kids' turf, not their own. Substitute teachers don't have their own classroom, and must usually supervise the students in their room. Not owning one's turf only works against a sub, giving kids the upper hand. For example students might go in the absent teacher's closet (or log on to the computer) and when the sub tries to intervene, there's the handy comeback, "But our teacher lets us!"

Second, substitutes don't teach the students regularly, thus the sub can't fall back on the "keep them busy" routine that works so well for new teachers just trying to stay afloat. Sure the sub can come prepared with work, but there's little recourse if the students chose to ignore the sub's instructions.

Third, substitutes don't usually know the students' names. This makes discipline enforcement especially difficult, since any serious altercation will inevitably arrive at the draining "what's your name" game, which has myriad possibilities for the miscreant, and few of them work out well for the teacher.

Fourth, not only do subs not know the kids' names, but they also probably don't have a rapport with them or their families. Regular classroom teachers have probably already been tested by Johnny Rotten, and have probably tried various interventions to get him to behave, such as using consequences and contacting Johnny's home. But when a sub walks in, it's like fresh meat for the Johnny hibachi.

Lastly, subs usually lack the authority to do anything with misbehaving students. Regular classroom teachers might have an entire infrastructure for discipline, from detentions to clean up duty, but none of that is available to a one-period-only substitute.

So what we propose is a modification of the school's discipline policy. A school must first have a policy, and a good starting point is the Ladder we wrote about last year. But we'd add a proviso for subs: "Consequences Doubled in classrooms of Substitute Teachers."

If fines can be doubled for speeding in work areas on the highway, why not give subs "a brake"? Substitutes have the deck stacked against them in every period they serve, thus they deserve some leverage. If students knew they needed to behave for their regular teachers, they'd be doubly cautious when having a sub.

Giving substitute teachers some clout shouldn't be such a foreign concept.

Desperately Seeking Numeracy in Fayette County

December 13, 2005 From today's Lexington Herald-Leader:

Last night, Vision 2020 groups began presenting recommendations based on six months of research to Fayette County school board members. Groups used computer presentations, skits and anecdotes to relay the information. The group on mental health and well-being encouraged everyone to stand up and stretch as part of their presentation.

It sounds like they had some fun with their presentations, but we were interested in the actual results, so we visited the group's website.

At first we didn't notice a report for Mathematics, but they've labeled it "Numeracy" (report available in MS Word format). The report contained seven specific recommendations (paraphrased here):

1. Require four years of math in high school.
2. Decrease math class size to 25 students.
3. Lengthen the math period to one hour, daily. Below-grade level students will receive an extra half-hour.
4. Hire a math specialist for every elementary school.
5. Develop professional development for administrators to help them evaluate math programs.
6. "Fully fund the use of technology to support mathematics instruction."
7. Evaluate the math track record for the past 5 years for every school in Fayette County.

It doesn't look like these well-meaning 2020 folks understand the problem. For starters, with sole exception of #6, all of these recommendations don't have anything to do with math! (Replace the references to "math" with "English" or "Science" to see how generic the recommendations are.) Plus, the recommendations are of the conventional-wisdom variety.

We have nothing against, say, 4 years of 1-hour per day math in high school, but they're dreaming if they think they can effect the length of a math session in period-oriented schools like middle or high schools.

And class size is a sore point with us, homogeneity is far more important! If students were promoted to the next grade (more importantly, to the next math course in the sequence) only upon the mastery of previous skills, then there wouldn't be a big problem with 30-odd kids in a class.

Getting back to their recommendations, the only reference to how math is specifically taught is contained in #6, embracing "technology" (a euphemism for calculators).

While it's no secret that we're no fan of calculators in K-12 math classrooms (see "Calculators are like Bicycles"), it's interesting, but sad, to read how the 2020 folks defend their recommendation, as in the following paragraph (emphasis ours):

Technology allows teachers to teach some traditional topics in a new way as well as teach new topics that are not accessible to students without the technology. For example, fraction calculators permit students to choose a common factor to reduce improper fractions to simplest form; graphing calculators allow students to look at where a quadratic function crosses the x-axis as another way to solve a quadratic function; graphing calculators show students connections between algebra and analytic geometry.

It is shocking that they'd suggest that these three skills are not accessible without technology! To reduce fractions (improper or otherwise) we can either have students be familiar with the multiplication table, or we can buy them all fraction calculators and then train students how to use them. To find where a quadratic crosses the x-axis we can, oh, set the function equal to zero maybe? And since Analytic Geometry can be defined as the marriage of Algebra and Geometry, it's not clear how calculators would "show connections" any better than say their everyday work in this course!

Did the authors of these recommendations even pass high school mathematics themselves?

If they took the name of their report seriously, they'd promote numeracy: the fluency and facility with numbers and mathematics. This begins by not shying away from what has worked famously in the past: memorization (and utilization) of basic skills, such as the multiplication table, to name one set of facts.

Memorization isn't the end point (as the drill-and-kill critics claim), but rather the beginning. When someone has mastered the basic skills, that student can look at ever more complicated problems and simply recognize--without thinking about it--patterns that are essential to the solution. For example, factoring a quadratic equation requires the student to simultaneously consider both sums and products, a fairly hopeless endeavor if one hasn't memorized the old-fashioned multiplication table.

Promoting calculators as a tool for numeracy is like embracing text-messaging shorthand as a tool for literacy.

cu L8r ok?

Success at Maple Elementary: A tree grows in Seattle

December 12, 2005 We're always on the lookout for success stories, especially urban schools serving traditionally "at risk" students. Deborah Bach reports this week in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about one such school: Maple Elementary. Two of every five students is classified as "Transitional Bilingual" and three of five qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, yet the school outperforms many other Seattle schools, and has been recognized at the state level for academic excellence.

So how do they do it?

It starts with a gifted principal, Pat Hunter, who modestly gives credit for the school's success to her faculty and staff. But she shouldn't hide her light under a bushel, for rare is the school which has capable teachers with no leader to guide them. The teachers teach, but the principal must lead.

Next is a rigorous focus on academics. Bach writes:

Maple's success is no happy accident, of course, but the result of consistent focus and a deliberate academic approach whose foundation, Hunter said, is "writing, writing, writing."

And practice makes perfect. While we were initially concerned to see reference to "best-guess spelling" (one of the danger signs of an English program that has lowered its standards) it turns out that at Maple Elementary, they get their Kindergarden students to write! This is fantastic (and yes, spelling can come soon enough).

Another reason for Maple's success: data. Not just any old numbers, but measurements of students' performance, skills, and weaknesses, which are used to target instruction. Intervention is so very important when serving children who don't come to school with all the preparation we'd like as teachers. There will be many children who can easily slip through the cracks, if it weren't for eagle-eyed faculty and administrators actually looking at data.

The best schools know that standardized tests aren't the enemy, rather they are a tool to be used to help kids learn.

There is much more to this school's story. But Maple Elementary confirms many of our ideas about what makes a school--any school "despite the odds"--great. Any school, especially any urban school serving high-poverty minority students, can learn from their example.

---

Update: Principal Hunter kindly emailed us her 2003 article "Structuring for Students' Success" which goes into greater detail about Maple Elementary's march toward success. A few tenets of their program are decidedly progressive, but that doesn't bother us a bit when we know their school is academically rigorous. (See our article: "Are Progressive Educators All Bad?")

No Child Left Behind and Growth Models

December 11, 2005

Several weeks ago Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced a new pilot program for No Child Left Behind, permitting states to use growth models in their task of measuring student improvement.

Many states measure student improvement year-over-year, comparing this year's 11th graders with last year's 11th graders, for example. This is sometimes called a cohort comparison, for it measures different groups, or cohorts, of students. It doesn't appear any statisticians had anything to do with this method of analysis, since it goes no further than middle-school-level statistics: computing the mean of a group of scores. If this year's students have a mean different than last year's students (almost a sure bet, since they're different students) then school districts proclaim "the school is improving" or "the school is declining."

Growth models in comparison are a huge improvement. These measure last year's 10th graders and compare the scores with this year's 11th graders, essentially measuring the same group twice, over time.

What is confusing to us is why the Feds have to announce they're now permitting states to use growth models. Why haven't states been using these models all along? Anyone who spends even a little bit of time analyzing the problem should come up with the same conclusion: the only valid way of measuring school growth is to compare the same students over time, rather than different groups of non-random samples (cohorts).

One possibility is that states have fallen under the spell of using tests that are longer, more comprehensive, and have more open-ended questions.

These tests take a lot of time to administer, and are very expensive to grade. Thus states like Pennsylvania only test students in the 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 11th grades, using the PSSA. They then have no choice but to compare cohorts, since there's no way of measuring year-over-year growth.

What do we recommend?

First of all, dump these lengthy, expensive standardized tests! In our view, these long tests, with their open-ended (thus subjective) questions, were designed more to mollify critics of standardized tests rather than to improve the data gathered.

In Pennsylvania's case, this would mean dumping the PSSA, which is the state's "let's reinvent the wheel" standardized test. This is probably a sacred cow, but it needs to go. It's not standardized, it does not show "grade equivalence" in the scores (since it's not standardized), and it's basically a poorly-written test, with all the hallmarks of a test "written by committee."

With the money saved by not administering these more expensive tests, states could afford to use a tried-and-true test like the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, and test each student every year. The Iowa test is relentlessly standardized, and has been used for years and is thus time-proven to be a reliable measure. Plus since there are no open-ended questions the results come back very quickly (and quick turnaround helps schools help kids).

Which brings us back to No Child Left Behind.

In the Federal documentation to help States comply with the law, there is a "road map" for implementation, with the following quote:

Assessments in Grades 3-8: What gets measured is what gets done. States must test all students annually in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school by the 2005-06 school year – not every other year or every other class, but all students every year.

Emphasis ours.

We'll write more on "test each student every year" and some of the analyses that can be performed with the data, in a future article.

Universal Preschool in California? Unintended consequences lie ahead.

December 10, 2005

Hollywood director Rob Reiner has a new project: universal preschool for California children. The ballot initiative, called "Preschool for All" will be decided by voters in June 2006, and features mandatory high standards for preschool teachers, with the price tag paid for by a tax on the wealthiest Californians.

What's not to like?

Well, for starters, "soak the rich" tax schemes never seem to generate the projected revenue, because when the rules change, so does behavior.

And government-run programs inevitably cost more than expected. For example in a SFGate article Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell use the example of Quebec's day care program which cost 33 times what planners projected. There are several reasons for this, for example the threats of strikes by unionized preschool teachers, and the simple fact that when something is free, people will use more of it than they would if they had to pay for it.

For more perspective, there's a December 8th Wall Street Journal commentary over at Lisa Snell's Education Weak. We hope California voters make the right choice this June.