GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

great points. As long as we are on the issue of teachers as a collective it is well worth noting new research (by economists no less) who have found that schools that produce larger value-added achievement gains are staffed by teachers who are more experienced and qualified (certified) AND who work together over time.

Using 11 years of student data in North Carolina, researchers C. Kirabo Jackson and Elias Bruegmann have found that most value-added achievement gains are attributed to the make-up of teacher teams, not the traits and characteristics of individual teachers. I wonder if the powers that be in NYC have looked at these data.

Drawing on sophisticated analyses of this large database, they reported in a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research that peer learning among small groups of teachers seems to be the most powerful predictor of student achievement over time.

The researchers warn that using value-added methods to identify individual teachers for merit pay and other high stakes decisions may very well be confounded by how teachers learn from each other. As one of the study’s authors noted, “If you give the reward at the individual level, all of a sudden my peers are no longer my colleagues—they’re my competitors. If you give it at the school level, then you’re going to foster feelings of team membership, and that increases the incentive to work together and help each other out.”

I believe it is time to figure out 21st century teaching effectiveness systems that both identify expert teachers and reward them for spreading their expertise to others.

Michael M: Baseball trading deadline deals. I’ll give you Mark Teixeira (expensive veteran teacher) for four prospects (inexpensive newbies). Just read the sports page the last two weeks of July, or leading up to any other sport’s trading deadline for that matter. Teams don’t like to do it, but budgetary constraints are a REALITY anywhere there is a budget, because, again, there is not an endless well of resources.

Other professions? This concern in play as well. My cousin, in the banking industry, is out of a job in this recession because he is too experienced. They’d rather hire younger less expensive talent. Yes, that’s anecdotal, but this recession has been a mighty correction for a sector that has seen all kinds of underqualified people make all kinds of money, and plenty of senior folks are among those 10% unemployed. Partly for this budgetary constraint reason.

The UAW failed to recognize the coming storm (along with management, for different reasons) and refused rollbacks when times got tough; they helped kill the goose laying the golden egg, because the resources ran dry. GM is the goose, and bankruptcy is the death leading to the loss of jobs (the eggs are gone).

No bottomless well.

Medicine: 16% of our GDP, 11% in other developed countries. I’m not going any further than that. I don’t have much of a point, but I’ve got enough arrows pointed at me on this site, and the medical system is such a mess I have a hard time forming an informed opinion.

And the punchline: there is actually a limitless well of resources for lawyers – someone is always willing to sue someone else…

Ceolaf, I’ve visited a lot of charter schools and studied some more, and seen a lot of models. I can say with confidence that it’s not uniform, but generally accepted in the NYC charter community as a best practice to have two senior folks, one exclusively in charge of instruction and one to handle the executive director type functions. Some of the networks go around this by having a principal and a management company that centralizes all of the ED functions across several schools. The bottom line is, most of the charters I know and love want the most talented instructional leader in the building to focus as much attention and time on classroom instruction as possible.

I just don’t see how this is possible in a system as large as the DOE. There are so many stakeholders to answer for. In charter land, a principal has to pay attention to, answer to and/or serve the parents, the teachers, the students, the board, and perhaps an executive director. The middle man is OUT along with the district office, the Support Organization network, the ISC, etc., etc.

I have my own little experience to count on. WHen I was teaching I was lucky to have my principal in my classroom more than 1 time per year. In charter land, it is an expectation that the principal is doing a walkthrough on a regular, if not daily, basis, multiple full-lesson observations per term, and in many cases multiple formal observations per year.

For those who cower in fear of the dictatorial administrator, remember that the teachers are free agents (to use another baseball analogy), there is no reserve clause (thank you Curt Flood and thank you NYS Charter Schools Act of 1998), and if a teacher is treated badly, that teacher is out the door and looking for a better boss. Bad principals in charter land don’t hold on to good teachers for too long, and that’s what leads to a bad school, and closure.

Much better accountability, in my mind, than the As and Bs that are relatively meaningless and go nowhere anyway.

Agreed on your main point and your aside. I hope you publish widely because I’d like to read your work when it’s done!

KS,

How dare you accuse me of not taking bait! How dare you!!!

The comments on this posting have been very interesting. I have been reading therm everyday. I’m not a teacher, but I do work in a high school. It’s a full school now, 9th through 12th and all the teachers are extremely young. The only older person in the school is the guidance counselor and myself. I’m older than the principal so I could imagine how some ATRs feel working in a school where the principal is much younger.

Are most of the ATRs from schools that closed? If the majority of them are from failing schools, where are the principals from those schools that closed? Are those principals blameless for the closures of the schools? Were the principals just assigned to run other schools? Why doesn’t the DOE look to get rid of those principals the way they want to have a time limit for the ATRs. Do the principals have to go on interviews to find themselves other schools to run?

In my opinion most ATRs that have seniority will have a hard time finding new schools because of their salary. Why wouldn’t principals look to hire two newbies for the price of one experienced teacher. They think that they could train the newbies to do what they want, but they would have a much harder time training someone that is more set in their ways because of age, et cetera. Some of the older teachers don’t adjust to the new ways of teaching that quickly. Sometimes I think they are right — that the old way of teaching reading and math is the way to go.

The DOE should have put the hiring freeze in place a long time ago, but since they didn’t, it goes to show that the DOE is looking to push the hire paid teachers out of the system. They are better off offering a buyout so maybe the older ATRs would look to retire — that’s what the DOE wants anyway.

Most principals are extremely young, but when a school fails, you just hear that the teachers in the schools aren’t up to par. The DOE has given way too much power to principals, especially when it comes to the budget.

Since the DOE has offered to pay part of a higher paid teachers salary if they take them into their schools, and most principals haven’t, it just shows that most principals will do whatever it takes to hire very young teachers no matter what. The DOE shouldn’t have to threaten to take money back from a schools budget if they don’t fill vacancies with the ATRs. These principals should be looking to find the most experienced teachers possible — not by age.

I find the tone of Ms. Sacks’ writing to be ignorant and immature. Any good person, especially one who calls them self an educator, would be hard pressed to question whether or not they should help/train someone who is so “nice” and “eager to learn.” I pity this teacher for having to work with Ms. Sacks while at the same time commend her for having the fortitude and optimism to rise to what must be an extremely humbling challenge. Also, I think Ms. Sacks should be learning from her .. education 101 – your heart needs to be in the right place. If Ms. Sacks views helping a colleague, who is so “eager to learn”, as “sucking it up,” I seriously question whether or not she belongs in a classroom in the first case. Also, I question her own performance and wonder if she is as perfect as she thinks herself to be. (What mistakes does she make in the classroom? Any good teacher/person acknowledges there own imperfections and needs for self improvement; especially if making an argument to disclaim the abilities of someone else, it’s only fair to exhibit a certain degree of humility and reflection!) Finally, I would like to ask Ms. Sacks what her next career move might be, as she is obviously so busy be a “Team Leader,” and “Department Chair”. So how long does she plan on being in the classroom? Certainly not long enough to be one of the “ATR’s” she likes to belittle and I am sure most definitely antagonize every day when she sees these people face to face. No, it’s pretty clear to me what Ms. Sacks is doing – nothing more than deflecting personal anxieties away from herself and her own insecurities so she can feel confident about her own flawless and perfect teaching, thereby building a resume based on artificial facts and loads of oh so impressive “leadership” accomplishments. This from a person who sees herself as so astute that she has nothing to learn from another who has more experience and a better attitude to boot!

This is not about ATRs per se. But what is clear from history is that in occupations that develop into full professions the members themselves establish and enforce standards of excellence among themselves. Ms. Sacks, in her blog posts, most importantly raises questions about the struggle to do so in the dysfunctional system that many teachers find themselves – in your district and others as well. As we enter the second decade of the 21st century unions will have to change to survive and thrive. In order to thrive they will have to take on more leadership in defining teaching effectiveness and ensuring that all students have access to effective teachers. This is why Randi Weingarten has noted that with the exception of school vouchers, “no (teaching quality) issue should be off the table.” The UFT has a rich history of leadership in this arena. Decades ago Shanker began calling for peer review, and late in his life, he made the pitch that unions should no longer resist the use of student test scores in teacher evaluation systems. (This can be done the right way – and the UFT has begun to lead the way here, BTW). In the late 1980s, Shanker called for teacher-led charter schools; in the 1990s he called for a demanding test, administered nationwide, that teachers would have to pass in order to gain union membership.

Mr. Barry,

>As we enter the second decade of the 21st century unions will have to change to survive and thrive.

Your basis for this statement is unclear to me. What unions have shown that they have gotten stronger by whatever sorts of changes you have in mind? Are there examples in other countries that we can look at to understand your point?

Or is this a statement more about what you think unions ought to do, without any evidence that they “have” to do it?

>In order to thrive they will have to take on more leadership in defining teaching
>effectiveness and ensuring that all students have access to effective teachers.

“More leadership”? More leadership than whom? Who has taken any leadership?

Furthermore, it’s awfully easy to talk about “unions” generally. Do you mean chapters in each school? At the district level? State organizations? The national unions?

It’s important to understand that the dynamics and impacts of unions are quite different at each of these difference levels. Yes, there are some commonalities, but there are also big differences.

I dare say that while the Blue Wall of Silence analogy is apt in general, it is mis-applied here.

As I suggested earlier in this string, to extrapolate about teachers in general based on the ATR situation, or even about the ATR teachers based on a FEW in the ATR pool is to DENY the big picture: WHY is there even an ATR situation to begin with, and WHO is responsible for it?

The Blue Wall of Silence is about police officers circling the wagons when one does wrong. What have the ATR teachers done that would deserve such scorn from a one-lucky-test-outcome-from-either-bonus-or-being-in-the-same-boat “leader”?

Would Ms. Sacks behave as the few teachers she pillories if the roles were reversed?

Is the lack of sensitivity of potential offense the mark of a future leader? Maybe under THIS administration. Eight is more than enough.

Barnett Berry,

Your comment about Albert Shanker’s various proposals and how they might have anticipated current efforts to monitor teachers neglects to mention how these proposals have been hijacked – as has the very concept of school reform – by corporate privatizers.

The issue is not how Shanker and others may have originally conceived these things, it’s how they are being put into effect right now. And it’s not a pretty picture: demonization of teachers and their unions, arbitrary school closings and re-organizations, invasions of public school buildings by charter schools and attacks against professional autonomy and working conditions, with far worse speeding toward us.

The UFT/AFT’s willingness to “collaborate” on these matters is a sign of weakness, not strength or prescience. It seems that, with their deals in New Haven and with Green Dot in NYC, they are more than willing to sacrifice the interests of teachers and public education in order to keep the dues money rolling in.

What Albert Shanker said decades ago, under very different circumstances, has little relevance to the many dilemmas we face today. Keep in mind that the entire concept of school reform initially flowed from the frustrations, insights and efforts of teachers and parents in the public schools, but that’s nostalgia at this point, since the term and the process has been hijacked, perverted and turned into a weapon.

Barnett Berry,

Unions, whatever their many shortcomings, are still the progressives, and that’s why they are perpetual targets. They are self-financed working class organizations that maintain wages on the high end, while bringing up wages on the low end. Union scale wages set the standard even in non-union shops. This is as true in education as in the auto, mining or any other industry.

Unions provide protection and a voice to people who would otherwise be powerless. They have historically provided political counterweight to the Money Power in this country. Their having won the right to picket has been an unacknowledged victory for civil liberties. Those are all progressive qualities, and they continue.

Teacher unions are an institutional defense for public schools and their students (thus the well-financed attacks against them): they fight against short-sighted budget cutbacks, and for programs to support vulnerable populations. They maintain class size levels and allow veteran teachers to be parts of the communities they serve without fear of removal. Progressive qualities, all.

As for for gaining the upper hand in reforming the schools, the teacher unions must do what all unions in the country must do: right the pathological imbalance between capital and labor, which is the source of many of the economic and social problems the country faces.

To put it in crude terms – which are the terms that govern and drive the ed deformers, despite their PR – it’s about power and control. Working people need more of it in and outside of work, and the overclass needs to hear the word “no” more often.

Barnett Berry,

There is a lot of truth in what Shanker said. The problem is that the unions are being snared into “…counsel(ing) poor teachers out of the profession” – see the PIP+ program in NYC and the new contract in New Haven – without having gained the political power to have a say in “budget, hiring, curriculum, student placement, assessment, and instructional strategies.” It’s not a good place to be.

This forum may not be the place to get into a debate about Shanker’s role in public education and national – and for that matter, international – politics. I would only suggest that the path he chose is partially responsible for the plight we face.

The UFT, with its $125 or more million annual dues income, has the potential to be a powerful force for the interests of teachers, students, public education and the public sector in general. Instead, it has chosen to use its resources in a parochial and narrow way, often sabotaging its own long term interests and those of the communities it serves. That must change, and then a new strategy of comprehensive engagement and struggle must follow, and soon.

It’s not just a struggle for the continuance of public education, but in many ways a struggle for representative democracy.

Michael,
I’m very interested in your comment: “The UFT, with its $125 or more million annual dues income, has the potential to be a powerful force for the interests of teachers, students, public education and the public sector in general. Instead, it has chosen to use its resources in a parochial and narrow way, often sabotaging its own long term interests and those of the communities it serves. That must change, and then a new strategy of comprehensive engagement and struggle must follow, and soon.”

I actually wrote this comment last night before you had posted the above comment, but never submitted it:

The fact that the unions provide a voice for working people who otherwise would be powerless is progressive. But I wonder what is the position of the union regarding the state of the teaching profession. I agree there is very ugly maneuvering going on by the “Money Power” players. One of the weaknesses I see in the union is that it seems to
take a defensive position most of the time–and in many ways defending a profession that was set up for 20th century schools. The union ends up compromising with the money powers, and since the situation for teachers and schools was never that great to begin with, we are losing (and so are students). Speaking very broadly here, how can we take a more offensive position, fighting publicly for a new, teacher-led vision for schools and our profession? And as a part of that, how can we be the ones to take up the issue of quality teachers in every classroom instead of letting those far removed from classrooms preach about it?

(For the record, if I were in a position to make a decision that could improve teacher quality, then, despite the content of my original post here, “counseling poor teachers out” of the profession would not be it, or even in the running. Improved working conditions, including autonomy in the classroom and incentives for teachers to stay in the profession would be front and center. Unfortunately, at GS you’ve “met” me at the one moment when I have ever come down on teachers in my writing. Clearly I did not do that in a way that accurately represented my broader perspective of what’s happening and what needs to happen in our schools. I hope to do a better job of that in subsequent posts.)

Col. Graduate,

I suggest you get a little more experience teaching in the public schools before you spout your narrow and ill-informed comments. If you decide to actually stay with it, you’ll find out that administrators are not always the best judge of teaching talent or the interests of students, and that seniority is there to protect even people like you.

Ms. Sacks,

I only just read your most recent comments.

Again, I commend you for your willingness to deal with these issues openly, using your real name. I hate using the cliche “learning experience,” but perhaps it fits.

Unions take a defensive position because the reality is that they have a very tenuous handhold on legitimacy in this country. Please keep in mind that until the passage of the Norris-LaGuardia and Wagner Acts of the 1930′s, they were legally seen as criminal conspiracies in restraint of trade. Many, many people still hold this view – I’m sure many of them in positions of power in the urban school systems of the country – although perhaps not for public attribution.

So, their defensiveness is well-earned. The comparative strength of public sector unions is an even more recent development, and one that is under broad attack on many fronts.

So, to go back to your point: why don’t the unions take up the issue of teacher quality? The problem as I see it is that the issue has been framed, and the terms of debate set, in such a way that we can only lose. Start off with the premise that the success of a child, as measured by high-stakes tests, is entirely on the shoulders of a teacher – which is the party line here – sets us up for failure. Acceptance of pseudo-scientific “research” only puts us deeper in the whole they are digging for us.

Every aspect of so-called education reform – changes in curriculum, school organization and governance, teaching methodology, etc. – has originated with teachers and parents, and was dutifully ignored by the powers that be, until they recognized their self-interest in dominating it, and proceeded to hijack it.

Having ignored the schools for decades while they amassed their billions, and lobbied against the income and capital gains taxes that would have adequately funded the public schools, I’m not willing to give them the benfit of the doubt on anything.

What the unions need to do is re-establish their power, and tilt the hideously lopsided balance of power away from capital and towards labor. Perhaps then we can pick up this conversation on a fairer basis.

Michael F.,

You’re dead wrong on one count: “the premise that the success of a child, as measured by high-stakes tests, is entirely on the shoulders of a teacher…is the party line here”

Get past the fog of your righteous indignation and look a little deeper at the full set of policies advocated by the “deformers.” They talk about teacher quality, and they talk about leadership, and strong school cultures. There is just as much of a push to fix what’s happening outside the classrooms as their is inside the classrooms.

I’d like to see more attention paid to the holistic needs of children and families, a clear factor in student and school success. But if the CSA were more vocal, I’d bet we’d hear the same howling about principals being blamed for all the school woes.

Teachers are the central cog of any school community. They have their share of the responsibility. But I would disagree with anyone, even Joel Klein for whom I am a mole after all, who says that student achievement rests entirely with teachers.

And Ariel, in the same vein, I would like to question what you mean by teacher autonomy. The best teachers I have met in my life are resourceful, creative and hard working, and have a lot to contribute in terms of curriculum development and pedagogy. But unless they are part of a structured team, and have meaningful opportunities to contribute to a school-wide plan, their ingenuity is wasted when that child leaves the classroom and June and goes to a (possibly equally high-quality) disconnected, incoherent experience in the next grade. That’s not how you build a strong school community and a strong school experience for a child.

And fixing that problem, Michael F., is not about the teacher, it’s about leadership.

KS,

Please inform as to how “There is just as much of a push to fix what’s going on outside the classrooms as there is inside the classrooms.” Maybe in the fantasy world produced by mayor’s PR machine there is, but not in the universe my colleague and I inhabit.

As for fixing the problem of school communities requiring leadership, perhaps so, but we differ on where that leadership is to come from. As a parent and teacher I can only say that it’s definitely not going to come from people who at most have had little than a cup of coffee in the classroom, which rules out a significant percentage of the people taking over the schools.

Norm, your problem pn this one count is my problem too – I agree that in 90% of schools teachers don’t have a seat the CEP/meaningul SLT table – and that’s because of a crisis in leadership.

But I think things are getting better, not worse. I’ve seen enough of the old practices to know that I’m not interested in the abusive principals of the past. I’ll take the leadership academy CEOs-in-training over the authoritarian “my way or the highway” prima donnas I’ve had to work for any day. At least the CEOs in training have read the Michael Fullan, Roland Barth, books, etc., about distributive leadership.

So we have a 90% failure rate but things are getting better?

These CEO’s may have read the books but they must have poor comprehension.

Teachers have never been consulted in any meaningful way and never will be. Give me those old dictators who made it to principal by climbing up the ropes. At least they were once in teachers’ shoes.

The only way that will ever work is true teacher power. I bet on them to pick the best principal over any other method.

Wow Ariel sparked some real conversation. Some good, some not so much. A lot of opinions and thoughts were thrown in so I thought I would throw in mine.
Ariel’s article was taken as mean spirited and inappropriate by many. Perhaps there was some truth to what she said perhaps there was great distortions. Perhaps she was mean but some of the comments were also. It was amazing to me how many times she responded to comments. Seemed like she was trying to defend her position but I don’t think anyone heard her. (For better or worse)
I guess what bothers me most about this whole situation is the lack of compassion and understanding. I think the focus should be on longterm solutions. Solutions that help the children, ATRs, the community, etc. I am teaching now for eight years. Or should I say learning for eight years. I learn each day how much I still have to learn. Learn about children, dealing with other human beings, being a better citizen to the world, being a teacher that my mentor teacher had the belief that I could become, etc. To summarize, let’s all remember we are in this together. Some of our collegues will be more to our liking than others but we are all collegues with things to learn from each other. Let’s work together to build not destroy.