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!