preparation > evaluation

Since I started following Diane Ravitch on Twitter, I have been unable to avoid the discussion about "value-added measures" (VAM). She tweets about it constantly and seems to retweet everything about it. (Not a deal-breaker, but I was hoping for more.) It is a very hot-button issue in public education, so it isn't a surprise at all that she's all over it. In the smallest of nutshells, VAM is a formula that bases teacher effectiveness on student outcomes as measured by standardized tests. Proponents argue that it is a more objective measure than traditional administrator evaluations that can be clouded by personal relationships. On the other hand, opponents believe that VAM implicitly encourages 'teaching to the test' rather than 'teaching so kids can learn stuff' by basing evaluations of effectiveness solely on test scores.

Both sides agree that there needs to be a more effective way to terminate underperforming teachers who are harmful to students. However, I believe that more effort needs to be spent in making sure that these people don't reach the classroom in the first place. In short, teaching needs gatekeepers.

When I was training to be a counselor, I always liked that my professors took their role as professionals who were training future colleagues very seriously. There was a vested interest in teaching us to be good counselors because we would be entering their field, and they didn't want us to screw it up.

Teaching is very different. The myriad of alternate route certification programs has fostered an idea that, with minimal preparation, anyone can be a teacher. Like math? Teach it! Watch the History Channel? Teach it! I have met people who sign up for these programs merely because they don't know what they want to really do for a living. The programs vary in offerings and length of preparation - some offer a few months of prep, others offer five weeks in the summer - but none work to weed out people who are not cut out for the job. Teaching is one of the hardest jobs around and not everyone is cut out for it. These nontraditional certification programs are actually harmful to the field because, since everyone can do them, they lower the esteem of teaching as both a profession and a craft. All are welcome, so it must not be too difficult, right? (Wrong.)

Instead of spending a lot of money developing tools to kick people out the profession, more money and effort need to be spent to ensure the quality of those who enter. While experience definitely helps good teachers become great, the better they start out, the better they will be for students. I have read research that estimates that one year of bad teaching sets a child back about two grade levels. It behooves all of us in the education field to demand quality teaching from the door, and to put more pressure on these programs to preserve the craft. Accurate evaluation is necessary, but effective preparation is far more important. Teaching needs a bridge troll that only allows the most qualified people to pass, and preparation programs need to take that role seriously.

What are your thoughts?

xo,
Linds

the 'public or private' dilemma.

I was recently at a dinner soiree with some childless married folks, and the topic of where to educate their future children came up. As expected, the poll results were mixed. Most of the ones who had gone to public school said they wanted their kids to follow suit, usually giving the argument that they wanted them to be exposed to a more diverse population than a private school would offer. In the same vein, the private schoolers tended to prefer that environment for kids, despite the potentially prohibitive cost, because they saw it as safer and more academically rigorous. No one said homeschool, citing that homeschool kids "don't have social skills." (Their words, not mine.)

When asked my opinion, I gave what sounded like the typical Linds the Libra response: "It depends."

If asked before I started working in education, I would have said public school without hesitation. Just as the public school advocates at the party stated, I believed that it would provide the best opportunity for my kids to a diverse group of people. But now I'm not so sure. Recent research that shows there has been a major trend in the resegregation of public schools (including charters) since the '70s (the same time that forced Brown v. Board of Education-inspired desegregation policies started being overturned by the courts), this exposure is definitely not a given. Plus, if I'm still living in a major city I probably wouldn't trust the public school system enough to give them my child, especially before the 8th grade. The possibility of an erroneous label and the major consequences that come with it are too great.

I have spoken with a few of my Black friends who are parents, and it appears that this fear of labeling is very real. With them, the decision to try to enroll their kids in private school has less to do with safety or academic rigor, and way more to do with the fact that they don't want them to be 'tracked down' because they're Black. (While less diverse, private schools tend to be more open to diverse learning needs.) Even if the child is not slapped with the 'special education' classification, negative stereotypes of students of color play out in recommendations for upper level (Honors and Advanced Placement) courses. At public schools all over the country, the percentage of kids of color who take these classes is abysmally low. Such biased decision making can have serious consequences on a student's self-efficacy expectations, and lead them to believe that they have less potential than they actually do. Nothing is worse than a kid who doesn't think they're good enough.

I feel like a bad person saying these things, and I don't mean to knock the public school teachers out there who are busting their butts to give every kid the chance to be great. I'm friends with plenty of them and if I could keep them all on hold until I have school-aged children who could benefit from their gifts, I totally would. But since that is completely ridiculous, I have to keep it real: if I live in a city, my kids will go to private school... at least until high school.

But no matter where I actually to educate my future kids, I know that it isn't up to any school to completely educate them. For example, given my desires for quality, they will probably be part of a small minority of students of color, so I'll have to make sure that they get their cultural education elsewhere. The little things to get them prepared to be students will also be key to their success. So much goes into this all-important decision, and I'm really glad that I don't have to make it any time soon.

And who knows, maybe by the time Little Linds' are running around the whole public education problem will be solved, and location and means won't matter in the quest for quality education.

xo,
Linds

ps: Share your thoughts!

the "magic bullet" myth

It is both a blessing and a curse that education reform has become part of the mainstream conversation. The blessing part is that, with so many people talking about how to fix public schools, something positive is bound to come out of it. The curse part is that the discourse has been so hijacked by simplistic movies like Waiting for Superman, that many in the public think that the fix is easy. "More accountability." "Better teachers." "Learn from Finland." Yes, all of these are real suggestions. No, I don't think any of them will solve the problem entire problem.

No one thing will solve the entire problem.

If one thing could fix public schools, they would be fixed by now. If the "magic bullet" (or even a magic brand of bullets) existed that closed achievement gaps, raised test scores, and prepared students for the future, there wouldn't be an issue with public schools. Every child would be on pace to succeed and I would channel my 'save the world' energies to something else... probably something related to food.

But of course this isn't the case. There isn't ever a problem (outside of math or stretch pants) where one size really fits all. When people are the variable, the answers are endless. So why are policy makers looking for a quick fix? Why do they treat public schools as a monolithic entity with little regard to the people who constitute them? I remember sitting in many a counselor meeting and being absolutely thrown but the presenters who spoke of students merely as data points and categories. "The Black males aren't doing this." "The Latina girls need that." Having my kids haphazardly lumped together infuriated me. Whatever statistical regression that the school district used to tell me how to work with kids I actually knew didn't take into account the real life issues that they faced.

That is the problem with this whole "magic bullet" mindset - it doesn't address the actual, tangible needs of the people it is supposed to help. Even within one city, every school is different. They have different kids, different cultures, different problems. The only way to help all kids succeed is to address their needs within their specific environments. To me, this is common sense, yet all schools are held to the same mandates... and the public wonders why there is so much stagnation.

Targeted, individualized intervention is necessary to actually make progress instead of just mandating it. Schools need to be trusted to know what their problems are, and then given the autonomy (and adequate resources) to fix them. Yes this is more difficult than just setting one policy that everyone must follow, but clearly that does not work. I really believe that if educators had more decision-making power about what goes on in their own schools, then real progress can be made. Top down management doesn't work when the top doesn't listen to or understand what is going on at the bottom.

It is time to stop looking for a quick-and-easy fix to a problem that has been around since the American education system began. Achievement gaps, low test scores, and unprepared youth are symptoms of larger social problems that come with the unequal opportunities that children have to receive a quality education. Equalizing funding (rather than relying solely property taxes, which are based on race and therefore exacerbate existing problems) would probably be the best place to start, but policy makers seem to think that demonizing educators, punishing schools, and creating more charter schools is a better plan. Unfortunately, this plan is not working. At all.

I think these "magic bullets" should be melted down into a magic pen so policy makers can write some legislation that actually works. But what do I know? I just study this stuff...

xo,
Linds

all kids deserve to be "smart alecs."

From everything I have read about teacher/student interactions, it is safe to assume that the majority of my teachers from 4th - 12th grades hated me. I wasn't a discipline problem in the traditional, throwing chairs and cursing people out kind of way. No, I was just a really smart Black kid who challenged her White teachers and actually wanted to learn stuff. I was what they called a "smart alec."

My 5th grade teacher was the only one to ever call me a "smart alec" to my face. It was during Science time (we didn't switch classes). She spelled "vertebrae" wrong and I corrected her. Then she told me I was wrong, so I went and got a dictionary and showed her that I was right. She didn't acknowledge that I was right and never apologized for calling me a name, she simply kept teaching... and spelling "vertebrae" incorrectly.

I got straight A's in her class, but she always gave me bad marks for behavior that I never got in trouble for at home.  How could I have? My parents were the ones who had the audacity to both teach me things outside of the classroom and tell me that it was okay to be smart. I had this 'can't nobody tell me nothing' attitude (though I would never have spoken that grammatically incorrect statement aloud), and I credit my academic success to the fact that I still have it. If I think you're wrong, I tell you. If I have an opinion, I share it. In college and graduate school, this is encouraged. In K-12, it certainly is not... especially if you're Black.

Both research and anecdotal evidence show me that being a girl probably saved me from getting into serious trouble. Black boys are disciplined at rates much higher than anyone else, usually for engaging in the same behaviors that are overlooked (or even encouraged) in others. The school-to-prision pipeline is very real, and in this "zero tolerance" educational environment that favors harsh consequences over teachable moments, the differential discipline of Black boys has serious consequences. Kids who are suspended are much more likely to drop out, and drop outs are much more likely to end up in prison... all for something as simple as questioning a teacher. It's funny in a depressingly unfair, we-need-to-fix-this ASAP kind of way. (I'm working on it, but I need your help!)

But even with this knowledge, I want my (future) kids to be "smart alecs" like their mama. Actually, I want all kids to be "smart alecs", but especially the kids of color who are so often stifled from showing their intelligence by both peers who don't think it's cool and educators who don't think kids 'like that' are smart. I want it to get to the point where kids of color are told that they can do anything while not being expected to do anything. For this to happen, ingrained stereotypes and deeply held beliefs about people of color in general will need to be dismantled and discarded. Kids internalize these negative messages before they even know that there is something else out there. It is up to us as a society to make sure that all messages are positive ones.

Are you up for it? I know I am.

xo,
Lindsay

2012: the year of the small plate.

It is that time of year where every other commercial is about a diet plan. Weight Watchers. NutriSystem. South Beach. Even Adkins is making a play for the new years resolution crowd. The magazine rack at Duane Reade also reminded me that diets are the typical next step from holiday over indulgence. All of the covers have "real diet plan" and "celebrity diet secrets" on them, like I'm supposed to believe that these celebs don't have trainers who kick their asses into shape.

(Funniest thing about that rack: Kim K. is on the cover of one mag for dieting and another for being addicted to plastic surgery. Wonder which is right...)

Ok but back to diets. I thought it was common knowledge that dieting is perhaps the worst way to lose weight while being healthy. Cut the weight? Sure. Keep it off? Nah. The best way to do that is a complete lifestyle change... Or just don't eat a lot and work out sometimes. Unless I'm stressed out, I err towards the latter. When I am stressed out, all bets are off. The picture above is from a real time when I got so stressed from school that I fried a bunch of chicken, baked a bunch of cookies, and gorged on self-pity. It was tasty and terrible at the same time.

This year, I'm taking a different route. I don't think I can (or should) completely cut out the foods that make me happy, but I don't have the time to workout enough to counter act my binges. Cooking is one of the few enjoyable things that I can still do in my busy student schedule, and eating is the natural reward for slaving over stove (or, more likely, the crock pot). Enter: small plates. I must admit that I am a member of the Clean Plate Club (credit to the amazingly amazing Bethenny Frankel for coining that phrase), but I'm thinking that maybe if I get smaller plates it won't be so bad...? Like, I can still clean the plate but since it's a smaller plate it's ok...? Clearly I haven't tried yet and clearly it will be an experiment, but I think it will work.

Well, that and working out more than once per month. I'm sure that will help, too.

xo,
Linds

reading while pretty.

I'm a public reader. With my earbuds in, iPhone silenced, and Kindle (with the hot pink cover) ready, I block out the world whenever possible. Or, rather, whenever I'm allowed. See, I always thought that it was a universal rule that earbuds = leave me alone, but apparently the exception is that when men find you attractive they can disturb you whenever they want. (What, you didn't know this either? Well, now you do. You're welcome, hot lady readers.)

The worst part is that some guys actually think that they are saving me from my Kindle by forcing conversation. On my way from NYC to South Jersey for Christmas, the guy sitting across from me interrupted me no less than 10 times to say that he "liked what he was looking at." (I even overheard him describing me to someone on the phone. So gross/creepy/wrong on so many levels.) My responses became slightly less polite the more he annoyed me, so he finally said "Ok, I'ma let you read."

Yes, please "let" me read. Thank you, kind sir, for allowing me to do something that brings me far more joy than engaging in conversation about who is better: Drake or J. Cole. (answer: Childish Gambino.)

Beyond the sheer rudeness of interrupting someone when they are reading, what bothers me the most is when the men (term used as loosely as possible) disturb my bliss to tell me that I'm "too pretty to be reading." Yes, because being smart and being pretty are mutually exclusive. One guy even said: "You shouldn't be reading other people's books, people should be reading books about you!" Wow. Clever. (My response was that I would rather have people reading books by me than about me, and he told me he could make that happen. The fact that he was shirtless in Central Park holding a half of a tuna sandwich led me to question his publishing connections.)

Of course, the implication here is that a woman can be too attractive to be intelligent; that we reach a certain threshold where beauty beats out brains and getting by on the latter is utterly ridiculous. And, of course, I find this utterly ridiculous. As stated above, being smart and being pretty are not mutually exclusive, and I hate the way that women are socially pigeon-holed to choose one over the other. TV and movies always portray the pretty girls as dumb (and/or bitchy) and the smart ones as dowdy (and/or bitchy). Pop culture is such a socializing agent that little girls watch these things and believe that they, too, have to pick. When I worked in high schools, I saw this all the time. And all the time it broke my heart.

I really hope the men who believe in this dichotomy don't have daughters. Their issues will give my therapist friends clients for life, but I wish it didn't have to be so. Hopefully more women will pick up the mantle of teaching young girls that they can (and should) be fabulous both inside the classroom and out.

xo,
Linds