Chattering Classes Meet The Psychometric Qualities of Performance Pay

I just read an excellent post on Bridging Differences about using test scores for teacher evaluation. My favorite part was this...

"And then there is the fundamental problem, as all psychometricians warn us, that tests should be used for the purpose for which they were intended, and not for other purposes. In other words, a test of fifth grade reading tests whether students in the fifth grade are able to read material appropriate for children their age. It cannot then be used to determine whether their teacher was good or bad."

Hallelujah
Testing validity depends on the test actually being used to measure what it was designed to assess.
I keep coming back to the idea that teachers don't go into education for the paycheck so why do, as Diane describes them, "the Chattering Classes" keep thinking that giving a mediocre teacher a couple extra bucks is going to make them a better teacher?

Tying student test scores to teacher pay is meant to increase teacher "performance" but what we are trying to do is increase student learning. If we had similar accountability to the banking industry we could still teach whatever wanted as long as we demonstrated the goal has been achieved ie "learning". But, we are more concerned about the test score than the learning that is meant to be demonstrated by the test. As an NBCT, I am totally for accountability and high levels of learning and teaching but until we develop a support structure for accomplished teaching from teacher prep to master teacher whatever we put in place will really evaluate how we support teachers not their effectiveness. Besides, there are plenty of economists who have studied how money is not an effective motivator in any profession and actually distracts from the goals of a profession. This approach focuses us on the gaming the system ala Enron and Bernie Madoff and not the goals the test scores are supposed to represent. Student Learning.

Maybe if the student test scores reflected actual learning instead of students ability to pass a test, teachers would be behind this type of reform. In the meantime, if we want to evaluate teaching lets start with evaluating their practice instead of how well their students can pass a test.

Burning Down the House

On TLN and on my friend Bill's blog there has been a heated discussion of the role of creativity in schools. In a strange turn of events, I will support the opposite position for a minute. In our discussion of creativity it is important that we acknowledge the normative function of schooling. I am all for starting all over, burning down the house, and starting again by redefining the purpose and hence the accountability necessary for our schools. However, I think that some of the aspects of schooling that we might change might not be the parts that need to change. Creativity needs to be brought into our expectations, not basics pushed out. There have been numerous researchers who have found that the most effective way to teach at risk kids is to teach the basics and higher level thinking at the same time. Otherwise kids will not be ready to use either by the time they are adults.

I am sort of like the hammer that sees nails all over the place. I see creativity in many places where others don't.

Creativity sometimes substitutes for the word expression. I can see how teachers are fed up with the lack of expression of their humanity in their practice. In many cases it is not why we got into this gig. But, creativity and expression are not the same thing. Creativity is figuring how to get that test answer out of that kid as much as it is helping kids see past that test question.

Creativity is a big word with different meanings for a lot of people, sort of like schooling is different from learning. If all kids had to do was learn then they wouldn't need us, it is the schooling that makes teachers necessary. It is also why our creative expression is sometimes compromised for the sake of the an accountability tool that does not measure creativity. If the purpose of schooling moved past (but included) the basics standards we would probably have plenty of time for creativity, in fact we might be required to teach it 3 hours a day. Then what would we have to complain about?

The big issue seems to me to be that there is a conflict between what schools need to be about, and what they are held accountable for creating. These expectations are almost polar opposites now which can cause a great deal of stress for the people responsible for meeting conflicting expectations. We have a hunch about what kids will need in the future but right now, that doesn't matter. Right now what matters is the test. So we have to teach to both sides of the brain at the same time with out compromising either. It can be done, in fact it has been done in poor schools for years.

Image from: http://www.centralfpd.com/Portals/0/Clip%20Art/House%20on%20Fire02.GIF

Malcolm Gladwell the Airmchair Quarterback

Yesterday Eduwonkette responded to Malcolm Gladwell's article on hiring teachers in the New Yorker. In It Gladwell uses the first bad metaphor I have ever seen him write. I am a big fan of Gladwell's work but it seems like he hasn't talked to as many teachers as researchers before writing this article. In it he compares teaching to being a professional football player. I am sure that all of the women I work with will appreciate being compared to a 6 foot 2" football player but the part that is really bad is in portraying the circumstances. Gladwell compares watching players in college to watching teachers in student teaching. He then compares playing pro ball to becoming a real teacher. One way the metaphor breaks down is that even though many players can't transition to the big leagues is that the game changes. It becomes more complex and harder in the pros.

Teaching isn't hierarchical in its demands and schools are not organized so that the same type of practice is needed to be successful in each. The truth of the situation is that in some schools you can teach like a high school quarterback and be fine and in others you have to teach like professional quarterback to be successful. The real difference is that you get paid better in professional football if you are successful whereas in teaching the high school quarterbacks and the professional quarterbacks all get paid the same.

Over on Wonkette's site there is a hearty discussion about what makes good teachers. In it there is discussion about the art and science of teaching. John Thompson suggests that the profession is most like a craft. I tend to agree. Nancy Flanagan has written an excellent response to Wonkette's article as well.

Nancy and I have discussed art and science numerous times in the past. I want to point out that when Nancy says "science" and wonks and researchers say "science" they are not talking about the same thing. When wonks say science they are often proposing a word problem something like this: Teaching Practice A yields student success 88% of the time. Teaching Practice B yields student success 64% of the time. Which practice should you choose?

Nancy is talking about approaching teaching with a scientific mindset. She might choose Teaching Practice A but she might also choose Teaching Practice B at another time just to reach that 12% of kids Practice A doesn't work for.
I keep coming back to the story in Teacher Man where a kid throws a sandwich across the room. In that moment, how does McCourt react? There is no science in that moment but there is something else. There are goals, increasing student engagement and building relationships. Two goals that support and lead to student success although there is no academic element to the situation. What does McCourt do? He eats the sandwich. This is where creativity comes in, in how we react and promote learning "around" the academic content.

One point not mentioned in the discussion so far is the role of Bob Pianta's work in Gladwell's article. I have been a fan of Pianta's work for years. I know that he would not say that teaching should be open to anyone with a pulse but he would agree that the traits of successful teachers can be found in anyone. In the article Pianta highlights what the preschool teacher does that is good teaching, allowing students to show engagement through movement, he also points out what she could have done that would have supported more learning. This is where the profession can be taught, how to maximize learning situations. The teacher does maximize the learning by responding "creatively" to the situation as in she creates more learning using what is out of her control instead of shutting it down.

Disrupting Education

I have been reading Clayton Christensen's Disrupting Class.In it he proposes that education, like all industries of a certain vintage, is ripe for disruptive innovation. He proposes that this will come about because technology provides unique opportunities for individualization in untapped markets like early childhood education, boutique classes offered online, and home schooling. I think he misses the mark with his application of his theories about innovation to education.

I agree that education is ripe for disruption but I don't think it will come about because of technology.

I have come to the conclusion that education is an entirely human endeavor and not necessarily adaptable to the laws of commerce that so many business models encourage us to adopt. I think the future disruption that Christensen proposes will come about.... but only from and by the hand of teachers.

Teachers taking more and more leadership in the process of education would constitute a true innovation. Changes to education in the past have come from influences outside of education like technology. As teachers embrace their creative capacity as professionals they will push education past its current state to become another entity and that technology will only be the tool for that disruption.

Teachers are currently creating disruptions in areas like:

• how schools are created, run, and funded with models like Avalon Schools
  
• how curriculum is developed and distributed with services like We Are Teachers
• how instruction is delivered using Web 2.0 tools

Dr. Christensen, you have made some excellent points in your book but I think that perhaps you might have committed the classic academic researcher's mistake by seeing what you were looking for and not necessarily the reality of the situation. Education will change but, it is the people who will change it, not the tools.

Image from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers

How does this help children? (An Educational Hero Story)

Have you ever had a teacher that had such high expectations you almost gave up but, because you cared what she thought so much you persevered and grew? I had a teacher like that this summer. She also happened to be that kind of leader for Virginia. Dr. Jo Lynne DeMary was state superintendent for Virginia from 2000 to 2006. She was the first woman state superintendent in Virginia. She was also a non-partisan advocate for children first appointed by Republican Governor James Gilmore and then reappointed by Democratic Governor Mark Warner. She lead our state through the growing pains of an accountability system designed to, as she once said, "raise the floor of achievement" in our state. For that, she is one of my education heroes but, she taught me so much more this summer. She helped me to think about education in such a pragmatic and sensible manner that I don't think I will ever approach educational issues the same way again. Her first question about a solution to an issue always seemed to be, "How does this help children?"

When Virginia began the Standards of Learning, as could be imagined, there was a lot of opposition. Although the standards were put into practice in 1995 they didn't "count" towards graduation until 2004. The time period from 2000 to 2004 was a crucial time in our state. Dr. DeMary made a huge difference towards creating a better educational system in Virginia. She helped to create an environment where students could be successful and still meet high standards.

I guess the story that has most impacted me was a story that Dr. DeMary told at the Pinning Ceremony for National Board Certification in 2004.
She told a story about her local superintendent coming to her school. In those days there was time for that. He would come every couple months. When he came to her first grade classroom her first year she was beside her self with anticipation. He asked her how her students were doing. She said, "Great, almost all of them can read." He asked, "Who can't read?" She responded the way a teacher of the time might have, "Oh, well Jimmy." He asked, "Why can't Jimmy read?" She didn't know what to say. Did it matter that Jimmy was from a broken home, played in class too much, or had older siblings who got in trouble? Did it matter if he was poor, black, white, or deaf?

When the superintendent came back she was ready. She had redoubled her efforts. Jimmy wasn't reading yet but he was getting there. She was so proud. When he came the second time he asked one question, "Can Jimmy read yet?" She had to say, "No." It crushed her. She never let it happen again. When he came at the end of the year she could say with confidence, "Yes."

That is what Dr. DeMary taught me. It is not about getting the 70-80-90% to pass the test. Teaching is about every child not just the ones that are easy to teach but the ones who are hard to teach too. After hearing that story I decided it was no longer my job to make sure my students passed the PALs test in preschool. It was my job to get 100% of them reading or ready to read by the time they leave my class. That is the difference between being a good teacher and the teacher we are trying to be, excuses.

Not only did Jo Lynne DeMary lead the state she also helped to save failing schools. She helped to develop and implement the "Turnaround" principal program at the University of Virginia. Sadly, our state no longer funds the program but, it was a great program. You see, a turnaround specialist saved my school.

Seriously.

If we hadn't gotten a turnaround principal 3 years ago we would still be failing our children.
So in a sense Dr. DeMary saved my school and my students through reforms she implemented from the top down. How did she do it? I think she did it by continuing to ask that simple question, "How does this help children?" I will keep that simple question with me for the rest of my life. No matter whether the issue is charter schools, national standards, teacher pay for performance, or universal access to preschool. I will ask that question and try to stand on the side that has the best answer.
That is why Dr. DeMary is one of my educational heroes.

its OK if I talk to myself

Yes, a researcher has given me, well at least my preschool students, permission to talk to ourselves. This is great because I already talked to myself and of course my students already thought I was crazy. Now I can use this research to show them they are wrong! I actually know what I am doing when I make those noises.
Adam Winsler a researcher at George Mason has conducted a study published in Early Childhood Research Quarterly that finds that preschoolers are better able to perform motor tasks better when they talk to themselves.
He said:

"Young children often talk to themselves as they go about their daily activities, and parents and teachers shouldn’t think of this as weird or bad," says Winsler. "On the contrary, they should listen to the private speech of kids. It's a fantastic window into the minds of children."

In the study "78 percent of the children performed either the same or better on the performance task when speaking to themselves than when they were silent."

This practice, of talking while doing an activity, is also considered a "best practice" in reading instruction when teachers talk about what they are reading and how they are understanding it as they read aloud to students. It develops metacognition of reading strategies can increase reading comprehension. I remember a particular third grade teacher who I watched do this with astounding skill. She has since moved I will always remember her as one of the most effective teachers I have ever seen.

So, research has confirmed something else I already "knew" but couldn't prove because I am a teacher, not a researcher. I say this as I continue my doctoral program to become a researcher so please don't read this as overconfidence, just a desire to possibly look at research in a different light. Am I to going into research to confirm what I already know or am I trying to generate new knowledge?

What was this researcher doing?

think outside the bubble

Have you ever seen a kid learn something you weren't teaching them at the time? When did learning actually occur? Was it while you were teaching, when they were doing seat work, in your class discussion? Was it valuable? Might it help them later in life?

The paradigm we operate with in education today is entirely technical. Policy makers and the public believe that students learn what we teach them. Period. But what might they be learning while we are busy trying to teach them to pass a test? If we only look for student achievement in relation to what we have taught we might never talk about the elephant in the room, that kids might not need everything we are teaching them. Or, kids might be able to learn some things that could be essential to their lives, if we only stopped paying so much attention to those test scores. If we become aware of what happens outside of the mind control testing we might see what is really happening in our students' lives.



This is what the post-positivist paradigm has brought us to in education. We have become bean counters. On TLN a teacher in New York has been discussing hourly measurable objectives. Yes, hourly. Can you imagine what that is like? Measuring ... constantly. Maybe it only bothers me because I am in preschool where the standards have only begun to quantify our students' learning. When we focus on quantity what do we sacrifice in quality? This is what testing has wrought, a world where nobody is looking at what really matters, kids lives.


Think outside the bubble ...


p.s. This video is based on some visual cognition research done at the University of Illinois. Check it out, its fascinating. As an avid road cyclist and commuter I am asking you to please take this public service announcement to heart while you are driving to work. You could save a life.

Is AWNM a Star Upon Thar Machine?

Is Daniel Pink really Sylvester McMonkey McBean? Is A Whole New Mind really a Star upon Thar machine?

I am a big proponent of Daniel Pink's, A Whole New Mind and 21CL. Thanks to Renee Moore, of TLN I read the negative review of Pink's book by Gary Stager titled, The Worst Book of the 21st Century. The idea I really took away from the review is a rejection of pop-business books as adding anything to education. I always enjoy hearing a dissenting voice but Mr. Stager's was especially enjoyable, if a little long. One of my favorite quotes is:

What business gurus like Don Tapscott, Daniel Pink, Malcolm Gladwell, Stephen Covey, Tony Robbins have in common is that none of them actually ever ran a business prior to hitting the bestseller list proffering untested business advice to others. Most of them have never been the night manager of a Seven-Eleven let alone launched or managed an innovative business venture.

They sure are fancy talkers.

And I liked:

Ultimately the success of these books is based on the authors’ ability to reduce complex concepts to simplistic binary dichotomies or playground rhymes. Such books are filled with numbered rule-based advice with little room for nuance. Issues are either black or white. The principles apply to any situation.

Supposedly, because of the involvement of the business world we have been moving away from fads in education. But, when writers like Freidman and Pink are getting all the speaking engagements instead of Linda Darling-Hammond or John L. Goodlad, aren't we still buying what Sylvester McMonkey McBean is selling? Especially, as Stager points out, much of what they are selling is pseudo-science?

"I'm quite happy to say
That the Sneetches got really quite smart on that day,
The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches
And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches.
That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars
And whether they had one, or not, upon thars."

Ultimately, I think that Pink makes some valid points that need to be heard and, as I said in a comment I left for Mr. Stager:
As for your point about reading Freidman or Pink instead of education books we (educators) might like to take a lesson from Pink. Maybe educators should apply some of that right mind thinking to write more readable books. I definitely learned more from John L. Goodlad than from Daniel Pink but, there isn't anybody who wants to talk about Goodlad with me, especially not in the teacher's lounge.

What does creativity mean to a flat world?

Much of the political discourse surrounding education these days is based on the economic perspective of the business world that believes we need to prepare world class employees. Most of the jobs that I hope my students will pursue have not been created yet. I see the effects of technology and a “flatter” world as increasing the need for people skills that enable communication. I also see teaching students to be creative in their approach to their lives as not only an economic benefit to America but also as a benefit to humanity. Teaching with and to both sides of the brain, as described by Daniel Pink, (2006) in A Whole New Mind, are the keys to preparing kids for the future.

Left Brain	Right Brain
Function	Design
Argument	Story
Focus	Symphony
Logic	Empathy
Seriousness	Play
Accumulation	Meaning

Students who have explored and developed abilities using both sides of the brain will have the skills necessary to be successful in a future that is essentially unknown. In my classroom students design, tell stories, are empathetic, play and make meaning. They also problem solve, discuss, concentrate, use logic, and learn when to be serious. Creativity and collaboration is central to the skill sets students will need in the 21^st century. I foster these in my classroom by developing activities that require collaboration and that have group products as outcomes.