Accountability Redux

This past week the New York Times ran two columns by Thomas Friedman dealing with the current state of affairs in American education. I found them filled with insight, particularly as we inch toward the implementation of the reforms of Race to the Top. A major portion of these reforms deal with standards and accountability, as they mandate that principal and teacher effectiveness be in part judged by student assessment results. Furthermore, results of standardized tests such as the MCAS will now be "drilled down" to the teacher level. Therefore, within the next year you will be able to access the aggregate results and Student Growth Percentile median values for a specific teacher. According to Race to the Top guidelines, these figures must be used for a portion of each teacher's formal evaluation. The intent behind this new system is to recognize and reward effective teachers and to weed out ineffective ones. The RTTT Program provides competitive grant money for districts who take it one step further and implement a merit pay system to reward the most effective teachers.

The challenges of implementing such a system will be great, as is always, the devil is in the details (which still have not been unveiled by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education). To be sure, all of us working in schools should be held to the highest standards of accountability, as the bottom line is student achievement. If our kids are successful, so are we. In that sense, I applaud RTTT for bringing data and transparency to a new level. However, as Friedman's column, "Teaching for America" points out, is there faulty logic in some of the philosophical underpinnings of RTTT? Some notions worthy of consideration:

• There are presently 3.2 million active teachers in the U.S. Within the next ten years it is estimated that nearly one half will retire (the baby boomers). There clearly will be teacher shortages. If the premise of RTTT is to get rid of ineffective teachers, where exactly are all of the candidates waiting in the wings to take the place of all of the bad teachers? I know from personal experience that there are presently a dearth of high quality candidates in certain content areas, particularly in the critical STEM-related (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields. Friedman makes the case that teacher training programs need to be made more rigorous, and perhaps like nations that outperform us on international tests- such as Singapore, South Korea, and Finland- only the best and brightest should be permitted to enter the teaching profession. In these nations only graduates who finish in the top third of their class are allowed to become teachers. If the U.S. adopted such a system, teacher compensation would have to be much greater than it is today.

• In today's knowledge economy, all graduates must possess essential skills such as the ability to problem solve, critically think, effectively communicate, and collaborate. This point is consistently driven home in the research and is highlighted in Tony Wagner's recent work, The Global Achievement Gap. However, as rigorous of a state assessment the MCAS may be, does it measure all of these skills in a comprehensive manner? Therefore, should teacher effectiveness be confined to just this assessment? Or should we be using multiple measures of learning, some of which are performance-based in nature (e.g., portfolios, senior projects, exhibitions, etc.)? Wouldn't these better get at the heart of these essential skills?

• The push for greater teacher effectiveness is only one side of the coin. We should do everything to reform our practices and ensure that all kids reach the highest standards. All of our schools should strive to be creative and do whatever it takes. Anything less is unacceptable. But this will get us only so far.... Part of the accountability dialogue must be around how ready to learn our students come to school. It is hardly a surprise that the annual Boston Globe Listing of District MCAS Performance is usually in the same rank order of the socioeconomic status of the 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth. It has been well documented since the federal Coleman Report of 1966 that home-related factors, such as socioeconomic status, access to health care, stable housing, etc., are the greatest factors in predicting a child's academic success, far outweighing school-related factors. Furthermore, how the parent supports the school and his child's learning, effort, and habits of mind is also paramount. As Friedman concludes his column:

"... If we want better teachers we also need better parents — parents who turn off the TV and video games, make sure homework is completed, encourage reading and elevate learning as the most important life skill. The more we demand from teachers the more we have to demand from students and parents. That’s the Contract for America that will truly ensure our national security."

Where are these ideas in the accountability dialogue?

MA Scores $250 M in Race To The Top.... What Does It Mean?

Last week came the monumental news that the Commonwealth was one of the 12 recipients of the federal government's Race to the Top competition. Largely based upon total student population, Massachusetts was awarded $250 million by the US Department of Education. This is certainly great news.... but to be clear, by no means is this extra money for the operating expenses of cash-strapped districts. Rather, it is an infusion of funds for a four-year period to help accelerate the reforms envisioned by the Obama administration.

As the Massachusetts RTTT application indicates, the vision of the use of the funds is clearly aligned with the RTTT Program priorities: improving standards and assessments, improving teacher and principal quality, improving data systems that support instruction, and support to turn around failing schools. While implementing the four "turnaround" strategies is important for schools with chronic failure as measured by poor MCAS scores, poor graduation & attendance rates, etc., I honestly don't believe that aspect of the grant will affect our world that much in Mansfield. Here are the areas in which I believe it will:

1. Along with 34 other states and the District of Columbia, Massachusetts has adopted the Common Core Standards in English Language Arts and mathematics. This set of rigorous standards will replace the MA Curriculum Frameworks which have been in place since the early 1990's. While the new standards are very closely aligned with the existing MA standards, some curricular adjustments will need to be made in various grade levels. The grant calls for the provision of numerous curriculum maps and resources to help teachers with this change. Also, we can anticipate that the MCAS in ELA and mathematics will change, as a new state assessment (one that is computer-based) will commence in 2014 or 2015. Needless to say, there has been considerable political debate about this potential move.

2. Massachusetts' already rich education data warehouse will become more user-friendly, providing a wealth of information on student performance for teachers. However, accountability will take a quantum leap forward as the Department of Elementary & Secondary Education (DESE) will require all districts to provide student schedules and teacher names for the data warehouse database. The intent is to link student performance and growth on MCAS with individual teachers and classrooms. For teachers who do not teach MCAS-tested subjects, the grant calls for the creation and implementation of benchmark assessments to be given at all grade levels. Similar to MCAS results, student performance on these assessments would be tracked back to individual teachers.

3. The RTTT grant also will provide for a new teacher and principal evaluation framework that will help both have clearer standards of performance. A huge change here is the provision that student performance (as measured by MCAS results, benchmark assesssment results, MCAS growth factor, etc.) should be a significant portion of the criteria by which teacher and principal effectiveness is evaluated. Needless to say, the is an enormous shift!!

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming year. Of the grant, $125 million is staying at DESE to develop these structures. The other half will be dispersed to the districts who signed on to RTTT vis-a-vis Title I eligibility. This money very much will have strings attached, as the expectation will be to have completed targets in the above strategic areas. To see this work through will take a tremendous amount of time and effort, but I believe that it is the next step in the standards and accountability evolution.

Where are the Hot Jobs?

The following video clip was featured on Providence's Channel 10 news last week. The report highlights what the "hot jobs" are presently in Rhode Island and southern New England, despite the dismal economy. Check it out:



The immediate point that jumps out at me is the fact that all three featured fields- bioscience, information technology, and healthcare- are all in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (now commonly referred to as "STEM") realm. This correlates to a U.S. Department of Labor study from 2007 that projected there would be an increase of 2.5 million job openings in STEM-related occupations from 2004 to 2014. It is also no coincidence that a major component of the federal $4.3 billion Race to the Top grant (of which Massachusetts is one of 16 semifinalists) is the provision of competitive grants for school districts that improve STEM curriculum and offer new initiatives. This news on the few glimmers of hope in the current job market speaks to what our kids need: a rigorous curriculum that promotes problem solving and critical thinking, scientific literacy, and technological proficiency. Only with these 21st century skills will our students be competitive in a future economy.

Race to the Top.... What does it all mean?

Last summer the US Department of Education announced that it would release $4.3 billion to states through competitive grants as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Known as Race to the Top, this program essentially is phase two of the federal stimulus monies for public education. There are strings attached to this money, as states applying for the monies must met a very defined set of eligibility and selection criteria. Some of these criteria must already be in place and the applying states must demonstrate they have reform plans in place. The four criteria areas are the following:


1. Standards and Assessments: States must design and implement a set of "internationally benchmarked common standards and assessments that build toward college and career readiness." Massachusetts' well-established Curriculum Frameworks and MCAS system as well as its participation in the national Common Core State Standards Initiative positions the state well in this area.


2. Data Systems to Support Instruction: States must design and implement a comprehensive data system that details student achievement data over time (showing growth, etc.), can communicate with higher education data systems, and can match individual students with teachers. Massachusetts has done a lot of work in this area by establishing the Educational Data Warehouse and its new Student Growth Percentile reporting, but the next step, starting in 2011, will be to match student achievement data (e.g., MCAS results) to individual teachers. This data, according to the RTTT Grant, must be made easily accessible to all stakeholders, including parents, teachers, students, principals, and all district and union leaders.


3. Great Teachers and Leaders: States must provide alternate routes to teacher certification, ones other than traditional teacher prep programs. They must also come up with a plan where teachers and principals are evaluated annually and differentiated by effectiveness, using student achievement data as at least one measure of effectiveness. Data on teacher and principal effectiveness should be used for the purposes of evaluation, compensation and promotion, granting of tenure, and dismissal. Teacher evaluation should be based upon distinct standards of performance and should utilize a multiple rating scale. Additionally, states must have plans in place to increase the number of highly effective teachers in high-need schools (e.g., urban districts) and in shortage subject areas (e.g., math and science). Finally, state plans should also use student data to drive teacher and principal supports such as professional development and common planning time.


4. Turning Around Struggling Schools: States must already have the legal authority to intervene in persistently low-performing schools or districts and also have a statutory framework that is supportive of high-quality charter schools (e.g., no cap on new charters, etc.). States must also develop a plan where superintendents/local educational agencies (LEAs) should have the authority to turn around the state's lowest 5% of schools by using one of three options: 1) reconstitution of the school's leadership and/or professional staff; 2) handover of the school to a charter school or other educational management organization; or 3) outright closing of the school.


There obviously is a lot new here in the RTTT requirements. As it is estimated that Massachusetts' share (if funded) of the RTTT funds is approximately $250 million over the next four years, the state has made some efforts to create plans to support the above reforms. Most notable is the Education Reform Act of 2009, which the MA Senate passsed on November 17 and the House will be debating starting next week (for a summary of this bill, click here). The bill is meant to strengthen the state's RTTT application, as it provides for more authority and autonomy for superintendents to intervene in in underperforming and chronically underperforming schools, lifts the cap on new charter schools, enabling school committees in underperforming districts to establish them, and allows communities to establish "innovation schools," which have increase autonomy and flexibility in all phases of operation. Seeing that the RTTT application is due to the feds by January 19, the bill in some form will likely pass in the House in the next two weeks.

Also to bolster the state's application, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has sent out a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to all 299 of the state's districts. The MOU states that the district is committed to implementing the four above reform areas of RTTT and will support the state's plans to implement the reforms. DESE is asking that each district's superintendent, school committee chair, and teachers' union president sign this MOU and return it by January 13. If a district does not return the MOU, then it will not be eligible for any of the Massachusetts RTTT funds.

It should be noted that 50% of the RTTT funds will be dispersed based upon how much Title I (which is based upon poverty) a district receives. This does not bode well for Mansfield, as our Title I funding is relatively minor.

So much of this represents change- and with that will come a great deal of controversy. I personally believe that there's a great deal of positive reforms in RTTT, such as increased use of data, requirement of benchmarked, teacher-generated assessments, annual evaluations based upon professional teaching standards, and the possibility of rewarding the best teachers through differentiated compensation. These ideas will no doubt cause great dialogue, and their merits should be debated. Educators may love or hate these reforms, but they are here to stay.

The reality of the situation is simple: RTTT has strings attached, and in the worst economic times since the Great Depression, most, if not all districts are cash strapped and need the RTTT funds. The reforms of RTTT are clearly the agenda of US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the Obama administration. They are not leaving us for anytime soon. The way I see it is that we can go "kicking and screaming," or hop on the train, so to speak. My hope is that educators can embrace many of these reforms and shape what they actually look in practice so that kids ultimately benefit.