Posts
From the Times:
To move forward, the country must also find new ways to support and transform failing schools, beyond labeling them failures and presuming that the stigma will inspire better performance.
I don't understand all the hub-bub over labeling schools that are failures as failures. There's nothing wrong with a little truth in advertising. Plus, there's the the what's good for the goose is good for the gander aspect. Schools have been labeling perfectly normal kids who've they failed to teach as "learning disabled" for quite some time now and I don't see the NYT bemoaning that state of affairs.
So what's wrong with calling these failing schools "teaching disabled"? No one ever complains when we call other failed businesses "bankrupt," "underperforming," or "struggling." Why should schools be immune from accurate labeling. At least when we label a school as failing it places the stigma back where it belongs--on the failed education professionals.
If we want the market to work like it's supposed to, accurate labeling is a necessity. When a new family is looking to move into the school district, we want the realtor to be able tell them that the school is "teaching disabled," so unless little Johnny and Susie are super students there's going to be lots or academic failure or the expense of tutors in the family's future.
20 comments:
But school failure is never the schools' fault. It's the American public's fault for not having better children.
Better Children = Better Schools.
Better Children = Better Schools
This is a core belief, not just of school personnel but of many policy analysts and perhaps most parents.
Here in Irvington people have been telling me that "The high school is getting better, because wealthier families have moved in so their kids do better on tests."
One of my goals this year is to begin pushing value-added assessment.
I still have no idea how (or if) value-added assessment factors out tutors and parent reteaching, but the concept of value-added disaggregates SES from school conceptually.
The phrase itself - "value-added" - sharpens your thinking.
I'm becoming a Whorfian in my old age.
The aftermath of the 'no' vote on the fields bond has brought us a funny instance of our schools' lack of accountability, which I mentioned on Ken's blog.
Both the superintendent and the high school principal have given interviews to the Riverside Enterprise saying that the bond lost because voters "didn't understand" the proposal.
This observation is a direct attack on the "books or bats" voters. (Funny we should get singled out.)
The idea is that voters didn't understand that the bond would have no impact on academic spending because bonds can only be spent on capital improvements.
For a significant portion of the voters here the 'no' vote was a vote of no confidence in the District.
The superintendent, instead of analyzing what the District is doing to alienate parents, reacts by blaming the voters.
Better Voters = Better Schools
Schools are largely anti-democratic and the right to label is unidirectional. Schools believe they have an absolute right to label others (i.e., helicopter parent) and kids (LD, SPED). However, the educracy is loath to having itself be labeled. This is not new.
That being said, I'm not convinced the label "failing schools" is entirely useful. It can be helpful to parents to the extent they are contemplating moving to a new school or advocating for change within their own school. However, schools slip out many of societal consequences that should come with the label of failing. For instance, one of the wealthiest and highest performing school district in Connecticut (Avon) was deemed to be not making AYP (adequate yearly progress) last year. This failure was due to the subgroups. Avon is big enough to have reportable subgroups. My town, Granby, also fails our black/hispanic population, but it isn't reportable (less than 20 kids in a grade level), so we are high performing. Which school does a better job? Both might well do a lousy job, but Granby got a couple awards last year (Vanguard, Principal of the Year), Avon got put on the bad list. Good thing we don't have reportable subgroups.
But the labels at this level are not useful. If anything, Avon does a far better job of preparing kids for success in college -- higher average SAT scores, higher percentage of kids actually going on to 4 year colleges. But the poor minorities do terrible at both schools.
Catherine -- is it true that the proposed field project would have had no impact on academic spending?
I hear that sort of thing all the time, but it is true only in a very limited context. Our town votes a budget each year and has made commitments to limit tax increases to less than 5.9% in any given year. Bonds generally have no impact the first year they are issued, due to the way they are carried on the books and paid off, but every subsequent year, debt payments limit the amount available for the operational or education/town service budgets. It is a zero sum game, at the end of the day, what you pay for debt is unavailable for teacher salaries or garbage pickup or library hours, unless you have an ulimited ability to raise taxes. Most taxpayers are probably unwilling to raise taxes exponentially so that both fields, education, and town services are unaffected.
Wait, what do you mean, what are you talking about, we decided!?
My best interest?! How can you know what's my best interest is?
How can you say what my best interest is?
What are you trying to say, I'm crazy?
When I went to your schools, I went to your churches,
I went to your institutional learning facilities?!
So how can you say I'm crazy.
Lyrics to Instituionalized by awesome 80's punk band Sucidal Tendencies.
Rory -
lol
Lynn
Assuming I have a beginner's grasp of economics, by definition there's "no free lunch":
Cost
In the widest sense, the measure of the value of what has to be given up in order to achieve a particular objective.
A Glossary of Political Economy Terms
This is an excerpt of a letter to the editor that was published in the run-up to the vote:
....However, I cannot support the proposal. Too many questions remain unanswered and I am less than satisfied with some of the answers that have been provided.
First and foremost is the question of budget trade-offs. The Board has persistently denied that passing the fields initiative would affect academic budgets. They state that funds for the Bond are entirely separate from annual budgets. Money for the fields would be in a separate “pot.” From that perspective, the academic budget, which comes from the annual budget, would be unaffected.
This explanation is problematic because it addresses the budget question from the perspective of the School Board, not from the perspective of the taxpayer. Funds for the school, whether in the designated “pot” for the fields or in the annual budget “pot” come from the taxpayers. Most of us have finite incomes. If we spend more money for fields, we will have less money for the next tax increase that will undoubtedly be needed to cover academics: rising teacher salaries, health insurance, pensions and curricular improvements.
Unfortunately I don't know enough about business (or about public realms like healthcare where I believe you always do cost-benefit analysis) to be able to say what it is, exactly, the administration should be doing that it is not doing.
I assume that what's missing is any attempt whatsoever at cost-benefit analysis.
At the level of common sense, that's correct.
Voters need to know the lay of the land.
What are our foreseeable needs for funding academics, broadly defined?
And: what trade-offs are we willing to make to fund capital improvements to athletic facilities?
The irony is that every 'no' voter to whom I spoke understands trade-offs and is willing to make them. Even people who have zero interest in athletics agree that the fields should be maintained and improved.
"No" voters want to know what the trade-offs are.
I saw one 'vote yes' letter written by a parent who works in the financial sector somewhere (I believe).
iirc, that parent said nothing about voters failing to understand that spending bond money on fields has no impact on the ability to spend tax money on academics.
He argued that this is the best possible time to borrow money, and he backed his claim up with evidence.
If I'd been on the fence about the proposal, his letter could have persuaded me to vote 'yes.'
Check out the situation in rightwingprof's neck of the woods:
State High Vision
Ok... I give up... how do I join KTM II
Rory
I need your email address so I can send you an invitation!
You can email me at cijohn@verizon.net
Catherine, that is exactly what I meant to say (probably not so artfully though). Most parents and residents seem to grasp pretty quickly that there is a big pot of tax money in town that is typically divided up in a number of ways. You can do everything, if the pot is big enough (it never is), so then you must make some trade offs. That's where we are now and what makes all of this so frustrating. Tomorrow there is a town meeting to vote on a new teacher contract to raise salaries about 4% each year for 5 years. While this may be the best use of money, it's hard to tell because we aren't being told what kind of a tax increase this will amount to, what the total cost of the contract will be, and what we might have to give up to pay for it.
" ...beyond labeling them failures and presuming that the stigma will inspire better performance."
But it's OK to label them as "High Performing and Improving" even though that has little to do with the overall quality of education? Is it OK that these schools will no longer feel the need to set higher expectations? Is it OK that the current level of expectations does not include even a option of a simple course in algebra in 8th grade?
Let's get to the point. Who gets to decide what is a proper education for kids; parents or schools systems? The assumption is that there can be an agreed upon definition of a K-8 education.
I don't want to play their game. I shouldn't have to argue with anyone else over assumptions and expectations. The only basis for this parental lack of control (choice) is if they can show that their idea of education is anything more than just opinion.
While this may be the best use of money, it's hard to tell because we aren't being told what kind of a tax increase this will amount to, what the total cost of the contract will be, and what we might have to give up to pay for it.
School districts have got to cut this out.
I think this is called cost-benefit analysis in business (yes?)
You simply cannot make an informed decision on prposed expenditures without accounting for trade-offs.
Period.
Core economic principle.
I don't want to play their game. I shouldn't have to argue with anyone else over assumptions and expectations.
I agree and I've begun saying this on a regular basis around here.
It's not up to my school to define objectives and goals for my child.
That's up to his father and me.
My district thinks it's perfectly acceptable for them to decide that children "shouldn't rush" through curriculum.
That call isn't theirs to make.
Our administration is vulnerable on this score. The fact that they've spent two years stonewalling on the question of international standards looks very bad now that parents are finding out about it.
A think I mentioned on Ken's blog that a couple of weeks ago the math chair flatly denied that algebra in the 8th grade is the international standard.
The very next day she and two principals attended a conference at which the presenter told them that algebra in the 8th grade is the international standard.
There is a God.
Post a Comment