input

An Unfair Editorial

The Plain Dealer had a terribly slanted and unfair editorial titled "Cleveland school-reform bill needs teachers' input". From the title it sounded as though some were finally calling for collaboration, before a rush to legislation. Alas, that was not the case, as the editorial demonstrated, first with a straw man argument

When the usually reserved Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson says he would trade his office for "quality education for our children," all of the other adults involved in the high-stakes discussion on school reform ought to determine what they would give up as well.

So far, judging from the Cleveland Teachers Union's tepid response to the mayor's Cleveland-only school reform package, the answer appears to be little or nothing.

One should hardly be confused by the empty rhetoric of a politician and then compare it to actual sacrifices working people ought to make on the basis on that rhetoric. So straight away we knew this editorial was headed south.

The mayor says that despite hours of meetings with union representatives, he has received no written reply to his wide-ranging draft legislation on school reform.

The draft legislation was only made available less than 24 hours ago as of the writing of this editorial! People have barely had chance to even read and digest it, let alone craft some policy response document in considered terms.

If the Mayor and the Plain Dealer truly wanted teacher input, why didn't they seek it during the crafting of the actual legislation, then they could have rolled it out with a lot more support and a lot less controversy. To now blame teachers, yet again, for his own failing to collaborate with critical stakeholders is very unfair.

What Teachers Want

Via

  • An end to the teacher blame game.
  • Administrators who have at least ten years of actual teaching experience.
  • Involved, competent parents.
  • Adequately funded schools.
  • Input regarding curriculum decisions (and the input is actually followed).
  • Flexibility when it comes to methodology.
  • Administrative support in matters of discipline.
  • An end to the “teach to the test mentality”.
  • Acknowledgement that teaching involves so much more than test scores.
  • Acknowledgement that as a teaching professional, teachers might actually know what’s best for the students.

Feel free to add to the list in the comments!

What teachers didn't tell the governor

The Governor's education Czar, Robert Sommers, and his assistant Sarah Dove have finally published their report based upon feedback received via a web form regarding their corporate education reform proposals. The report can be read below.

We don't need to mention how this report lacks any scientific validity, because the reports authors do that for us

This summary is not meant to be a scientific compilation of the information. It is intended, rather, to present the general sentiment of the productive comments received. It is acknowledged that in any particular category, comments were received that would range across the entire spectrum of pros and cons.

It's one of the few honest things said in this highly charged and political document. Despite admitting that the methodology of this study is not sound, almost every single section of this document begins with the phrase "Teachers believe". In many cases what is asserted that teachers believe is not even supported by the actual feedback teachers provided. Earlier in the year, in a 5 part series, we published many of the actual comments teachers provided as input to this process. You can find that series here:

The report concludes with recommendations from a "steering committee". But we're never told who served on that committee, only that

"Robert Sommers, Director of the Governor’s Office of 21st Century Education, and Sarah Dove, Ohio’s Teacher Liaison, assembled a steering committee consisting of a cross-section of teachers representing schools and educators across the state.

When a document presents recommendations, do readers not deserve to know who exactly are making these recommendations, what the process for approving them was, and if there was any dissension?UPDATE: Commitee list is burried at the end of the document in the appendix, with no mention of who each person is, or who they represent.

Furthermore, for a process that had very little stakeholder input at all, this recommendation stood out for its audacity

The Ohio Department of Education must commit to providing increased communications with teachers about new evaluation and compensation models.

Little effort has been expended by the Department of Education in educating teachers on where the state is and where it is headed in the areas of evaluation and compensation. By providing teachers with a “big picture” version of the state’s evaluation framework, the state can lay the groundwork for educated and committed teachers. The Department of Education must reach out and collaborate with key stakeholders to assist with getting the needed communications to teachers and leaders across the state. ODE should develop and implement a strategic communications plan to identify key messages, important milestones and identify who is responsible for sharing information.

We agree, but are left wondering why this wasn't done during the preparation of this document?

At the end of the day however the biggest question we are left with is this, what is the point and purpose of this document from the governor's office? The Department of Education has already released its framework for evaluations. The ESB has worked for 2 years on the details of an evaluation system and local school districts and education associations have been working together on developing systems to meet RttT requirements. This flimsy, unscientific, political document, developed by an unnamed steering committee has added nothing to any of these efforts.

Ohio Evaluation Comp Reform

Are we serious about evaluations?

We were reaing an interesting article on development of teacher evaluations in California, that has this passage

The Los Angeles Unified School District rolled out its technology-based teacher evaluation system in August. Seven hundred fifty “pioneer” teachers volunteered to test the new system, featuring a newly-negotiated set of teaching and learning standards. The new framework was devised with input from over 1,000 educators working in small groups. To begin the process, teachers grade themselves (from “ineffective” to “highly effective”) on 63 teaching standards, then fill in a lesson plan template, identifying which of the 63 standards their lesson addresses, and to what degree. Trained observers download the lesson, observe the teacher using it, and enter their own data. Everything but the observation itself is managed online.

Teachers at the September conversation showed a real willingness to reform their own approach to evaluation; not one spoke up to say they would not participate, or be against the new system. Of course, many stated historical concerns: did we really expect that a new system would foster collaboration, when the current system supposedly depends on collaboration but doesn’t produce enough of it? What about principals who are not experts in the teacher’s content area? Are we really going to continue using standardized test scores, when there is so much evidence that many learning gains happen in ways the tests cannot measure?

Cue the screech to a halt sound effect. "The new framework was devised with input from over 1,000 educators working in small groups"

In Ohio, the evaluation system has been half crafted in closed door, smoked filled legislative chambers, with the rest done through a half-baked online comment form and just 18 "meetings" with hand picked teachers.

Are we serious?

Teacher responds to Kasich request for input

Yesterday, Gov. Kasich tweeted a request for input from teachers

Kasich_Tweet

NBC4i ran a news report, with a response from Worthington teacher, and Central OEA President, Scott DiMauro

Scott also shared his submission to the Governor with us

I have to ask what your purpose is in moving to this system. If you're genuinely interested in improving student achievement, you need to make sure performance measures are appropriate, all educators have an equitable opportunity to earn performance-based compensation, and you start from a strong salary schedule that recognizes the two objective factors that make the biggest difference in quality teaching: training and experience.

A one-size-fits-all approach won't work, so it's critical that local control is honored through the collective bargaining process. The first step has to be to drop the misguided policy proposals from HB 153 and begin an honest dialogue with the teachers' unions you so frequently love to disparage.

Thank you for seeking our input. I hope you're really listening.

You can leave your own responses to the Governor at his special web page.