Superintendent turnover is becoming a problem

by desertjim

Big city school districts are having a hard time holding on to their superintendents. A recent Associated Press article specifically mentions turnover in the top spots in St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri and Miami-Dade County, Florida. In some cases the tenure of the superintendent is short indeed. St. Louis is looking for the eighth person to fill the spot in five years.  The superintendent in Atlanta, Georgia has been there nine years, but before her arrival the district went through five superintendents in ten years.

It’s not just big cities that have a problem retaining superintendents. Here in Las Cruces, New Mexico, a city of about 85,000, there have been three superintendents since 2005. Various studies done a few years back showed that average tenure for superintendents nationwide ranged from three to seven years. Chicago Public Schools have done pretty well in comparison. Paul Vallas was the chief operating officer for six years and Arne Duncan has now been on the job for seven.

There are a couple of problems with such continuous turnover at the top. One is financial. In many cases school boards end up paying ineffective superintendents to go away. Contract buyouts (euphemized as severance packages) are common. In Texas, for example, $2.4 million has been spent in the last 3 years to buy out the contracts of 20 or so superintendents. Such buyouts clearly have an effect on school district budgets.

The second problem is the lack of continuity in program. A new superintendent brings new priorities and expectations. Just as the teachers and school administrators have adjusted to one set of criteria, there is change at the top and the criteria change. I was lucky to spend most of my classroom career in a district with long-term superintendents. However, there was a four year period in the middle of that time in which we had three changes at the top. The constantly changing orders from the district offices disrupted schedules, teaching staff and the education of our students.

The AP article cited above indicates that part of the problem may be the difficulty in meeting today’s higher demands. Diana Bourisaw, who left the St. Louis superintendency after two years is quoted saying, “School boards like to hire someone to come in and rescue the district, and one person can’t do that.”

As a teacher, I wanted stability in management. I wonder how such constant flux at the top is affecting current classrooms. Have you experienced such turnover at the top? If so, has it affected your classroom?

Labels:

STEM education - Beyond School Time

by Maureen Kelleher

There’s much fuss these days from the corporate world to Congress about America’s declining numbers of engineers, scientists and mathematicians. Grant money is flowing for Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology (STEM) education both at the K-12 and higher education levels.

One interesting sidelight in this story is the rise of STEM beyond the classroom: in after-school programs, summer camps and informal, community-based workshops. Last week, Project Exploration http://www.projectexploration.org and the Coalition for Science After School cohosted the first national conference on science and technology in out-of-school time here in Chicago.
The 250 attendees expressed energy and enthusiasm for their new and rapidly developing field, which sits at the intersection of two hot educational trends: STEM and learning in out-of-school time.

Yet I walked away somewhat unsure of the relation they could or should develop with schools and classroom teachers. “Our relevancy to formal education should be strengthened,” said keynote speaker Eric Jolly of the Science Museum of Minnesota . But how?

Clearly conference presenters didn’t want their programs to look like classrooms, often for good reason. Being outside the formal classroom offers advantages: more time to do labs and observations, a focus on personal relationships and youth development, an ability to focus activity on student interests rather than on a state-mandated curriculum, just to name a few. Yet many participants also acknowledged they want to do a better job of helping students understand the science behind all those fun projects.

I met exactly one person with a foot inside and outside the classroom door: Linda Marten of Chicago’s Foreman High School, who teaches biology and runs their two-year-old science37 apprenticeship program. Though Marten is delighted to have a way to give students real lab exposure, it’s been a challenge to teach school all day and then run a program afterwards for three hours twice a week. (Last year it was three times a week until she could recruit some colleagues to get involved.)

I left this conference with more questions than answers.  Where are kids getting hooked on science, inside or outside the classroom? Should we just make school look more like good out-of-school time programs, and if so, how could we do that given the testing and curricular pressures teachers face? Should the classroom and after-school be separate in terms of personnel but mutually beneficial by giving students hands-on experience relevant to content learning?

Closer to the ground, I met many good-hearted staff from local museums, but can’t say I’ve always seen clear connections between what they do and what goes on in schools or after-school in hard-to-serve neighborhoods. How helpful are Chicago’s museums in supporting classroom science teaching? How much of a role do they really take in reaching the hardest-to-reach young people outside of school time?

Labels:

How do we retain new teachers?

by desertjim

A recent piece in the Chicago Tribune profiled a young teacher returning to her second year of teaching. The article addresses the trials and tribulations of a first year teacher and the improved techniques developed by the second year. It also mentions that 31% of new Illinois teachers leave the profession before getting to their fifth year in the classroom. That sounds like a terrible attrition rate, until you discover that nationwide one-third of new teachers leave within three years and 46 percent are gone within five years.

The cost of such attrition is very high. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) estimates that there is an average turnover cost of over $56,000 for each teacher who leaves and is replaced by a new hire. ACORN’s figures come from a study done in Texas but their assumption is that Chicago Public Schools would absorb similar losses for each new teacher that decides to call it quits. Nationwide, a recent report finds that teacher turnover costs US school systems over $7 billion a year. Clearly something needs to be done to help new teachers stay in the classroom beyond their first few years. If the monetary loss is not enough, there is the simple fact that experience counts, and our students suffer if there are fewer experienced teachers in the classrooms.

Studies have been done to determine what causes the high turnover rate. A National Center for Education Statistics survey found that 64% left for jobs where they had more professional autonomy. The survey also found widespread problems with workloads and general working conditions. Anecdotal evidence cites administrative inflexibility and high levels of bureaucracy as reasons for leaving teaching. A survey in Arizona found that time, teacher empowerment, school leadership, professional development and facilities and resources all entered into the decision to stay in teaching or leave the profession.

What can be done to curb teacher turnover? Have you been involved in effective programs that keep teachers in their classrooms? What can other teachers do to help new teachers become long-term members of the school community?

Labels:

Teaching Recognized as National Service

by desertjim

The time may have come in which teaching is recognized for the service it provides to the nation. In recent speeches and interviews both presidential candidates have cited teaching as an example of the kind of community or national service that they support. Senator Obama recently spoke of his plan to help universities partner with school districts to provide stronger field experiences for prospective teachers who agree to serve in high-need schools. He stressed the need for math and science teachers in particular. Senator McCain, meanwhile, stressed his own community-service plan that would use Americorps and Senior Corps volunteer to help address high dropout rates in some high school by serving as tutors and mentors. McCain also spoke highly of Teach For America as, “probably one of the lead organizations in America today.”

Obama, in response to questions on the Teach For America website stated that his proposed Service Scholarship program would prioritize the recruitment of of high quality math and science teachers and focus on successful teaching and effective [school] leadership. McCain’s responses supported programs such as charter schools that allow the recruitment and hiring of teaching staffs whose skills reflect the mission and goals of the organization rather than, “State or district imposed management interference such as tenure laws.” Both want to see the brightest graduates in all fields of study brought into teaching. A greater national stress on the recruitment of teachers seems to be in the cards regardless of the outcome of the election in November.

Not everyone is waiting for the next national administration to put a new program in place. In Illinois, the governor recently signed into law the Golden Apple Illinois Future Teacher Corps Partnership. The law will create a consolidated program that will assist prospective teachers who will teach in hard-to-staff schools throughout the state. This consolidation of the Golden Apple Scholars program and the Illinois Future Teachers Corps will result in scholarships for up to 200 future teachers a year (3). The scholarship students will be required to pursue teaching degrees in Illinois universities and pledge to teach in needy schools. In another attempt to attract people to teaching, Illinois and other states have created alternative certification routes for adults with degrees in other fields to gain teacher certification. The Golden Apple Foundation is proud to have been instrumental in creating the first alternative certifcation program in Illinois.

Now that the presidential candidates have put teaching front and center as a form of national service perhaps we can attract more of the best and the brightest to the profession. I guess the question we need to ask is which of these methods will be most effective in improving public education. Are all these approaches likely to be equally as effective? Should we be hoping for increased volunteerism, as advocated by McCain, student loan forgiveness and scholarships as advocated by Obama or alternative certification routes for adults? 

Labels:

Public hearings scheduled on school-funding reforms

from Cheryl Chapman

The Illinois House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee has scheduled five hearings for late September and early October to consider ideas on school-funding reforms..  All are welcome to attend, and Voices strongly encourages Illinoisans to use these opportunities to demand changes that can improve learning for all children—particularly those whose opportunities are lagging the most.  The hearings are scheduled for:

Oak Park:  Sept. 18, 1 p.m., Oak Park Village Hall, 123 Madison St.
South Holland:  Sept. 30, 6 p.m., Thornwood High School, 17101 S. Park Ave.
Chicago:  Oct. 2, 6 p.m., Loyola University, 6525 N. Sheridan Road
Lincolnwood:  Oct. 6, 7 p.m., Lincolnwood City Hall, 6900 N. Lincoln Ave.
Springfield:  Oct. 9, 1 p.m., State Capitol, 2nd and Monroe Streets

Committee Chairman and state Rep. Mike Smith of Canton called for the hearings last month, prompted by the efforts of Chicago Sen. James Meeks and other African-American legislators to highlight gross funding inequities among Illinois schools.  To try to reduce such unfairness, Meeks and some fellow lawmakers called, in part, for the elimination of property taxes as a source of school revenues. “Fairness is a fundamental concept we teach our children.  We should apply that lesson in every aspect of public policy—particularly our aim to offer every child a high-quality education, a goal we clearly are not fulfilling today,” said Jerry Stermer, president of Voices for Illinois Children.

However, elimination of property taxes from the school formula could remove some important stability from Illinois’ education funding base, Voices believes.  Stermer said a key to improving funding fairness is to focus on greatly increasing the state’s investments, in order to lift-up poorly supported schools and to bolster research-proven strategies to raise the quality of children’s education.  This approach would allow Illinois to maintain the stability of property taxes as a revenue source while appropriately shifting more responsibility to state funding sources.

“The improvement of children’s learning hinges upon caring adults coming together with more ideas, more creativity and more commitment,” Stermer added, applauding the work of Meeks, Smith and other education leaders to focus more attention on this issue of critical importance to Illinois’ future.

Stermer plans to address the South Holland hearing, and other members of the A+ Illinois campaign—seeking reform of schools’ funding and quality and the state’s revenue system—will speak at several of the forums.

Labels:

National Student/Parent Mock Election - October 30, 2008

by desertjim

Once again the National Student/Parent Mock Election (NMSPME) is providing free curriculum materials to schools who want to bring current events to their classrooms. This year their national mock election day is October 30, 2008. In 2004, over four million students, parents and teachers participated in their national presidential mock election.

The people who run the NMSPME feel that their process can turn the sense of powerlessness that keeps young Americans and their parents from going to the polls into a sense of the power of participation in our democracy. That may be wishful thinking. However, the United States does have one of the lowest percentages of voter participation in any of the world’s democracies. Perhaps allowing your students to be part of a nationwide straw poll will instill the habit of voting in them.

I realize that it is necessary for teachers to keep their personal politics out of the classroom. I admit that, when I taught US History, I did expand on the one page textbook summary on the union movement. That may be considered a political decision on my part, but I figured the textbook authors had already made a different political decision by pretty much ignoring the struggles of working people. I never did tell students who I was voting for though, and we did have mock elections in presidential years. I think it is possible to teach the political process without pushing your personal political beliefs. This would certainly seem to be a good year to do so.

I would be interested in knowing how many TEN readers are going to be using this year’s election as a teaching tool. Even if you are not going to use the NSPME mterials, are you going to have students express their presidential preference? Are you going to have student debates on the campaign issues? How much class time will you devote to the ongoing civic event that surrounds us in this presidential election year?

Labels:

Paying for Grades - Will It Create Successful Students?

by desertjim

On September 11, 2008, the Chicago Tribune headlined an article “Earn an A? Here’s $50.” The article went on to describe a pilot program which will pay up to 5000 freshmen for earning good grades. The Harvard designed program will measure students every five weeks in math, English, social studies, science and PE. Earning money on a graduated scale from $50 for an A to $20 for a C, a straight A student can earn up to $4000 in the first two years of high school (one half of the money will be held back until graduation).

Chicago Public School chief executive Arne Duncan is in favor of the program, “...I’m trying to level the playing field. This is the kind of incentive that middle-class families have had for decades.” Critics call it a bribe. Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College says, It’s a terrible idea because you are getting people to do things for wrong reasons.” The idea is based on the fact that adults who do well at work expect raises. For employees, higher pay is an incentive to work harder.  Why shouldn’t the same thing apply to students?

Based on this logic, district officials in Dallas, Texas started paying students for scoring well on Advanced Placement tests in 1996. Similar programs exist in Arkansas, Alabama, Connecticut and Virginia. In New York city, more than $500,000 has been doled out in two years . The New York city program involved fourth and seventh grade students in 60 public schools for one school year. The program, designed by Harvard economist Roland Fryer was intended to, “Figure out a way to make school tangible for kids, to come up with short-term rewards that will be in their long-term best interests.” In Albuquerque, NM, students at a charter school can earn up to $300 a year for good attendance. In Santa Ana, CA and Baltimore, MD, students can earn money for doing well on standardized tests.

Janet Bodnar in Kiplinger’s Personal Finance questions whether such programs can actually improve learning.She points out that, “High achieving students will get good grades anyway, so you’re wasting your money. Kids who are underacheivers fail because they’re inconsistent [according to child psychologist Sylvia Rimm] so if they slip and get a poor grade, they figure they’re not going to get the reward and give up.” Bodnar feels that learning is a sign of a child’s natural growth and development. Since we don’t pay kids for learning to tie their shoes or ride a bike, we shouldn’t pay them for learning to read.

The little bit of research that exists was all done on earlier programs. It seems to show that, despite short-term gain, pay for grades may be detrimental in the long-term. Earlier programs showed decreased student motivation once the incentives were removed. Nonetheless, the people supporting the current programs feel that once students actually get good grades in order to earn money, they will realize their own abilities and know that they can be successful in school.

But the question is still open - is pay for grades a way to create more successful students?

Labels:

Cell phones in the classroom

by desertjim

Current figures indicate that 75% of 13 to 17 year olds in the United States have cell phones. Wireless companies are now working to have the same percentage of 8 to 12 year olds enter the ranks of the electronically connected. Even my 10 year old grand-daughter carries her very own cell phone in her backpack (restricted by her parents to calling 911, her paretns at work and home). More of our students have cell phones than have computer access. At the college level Abilene Christian University will hand out iPhones to two-thirds of this year’s entering class of freshmen . Students and instructors are expected to use the devices in class to take attendance, get virtual handouts and brainstorm ideas.

There is no question that cell phones are already distractions in classrooms at all levels. Text-messaging makes it possible for students to exchange answers during exams. The ability of the phones to serve as game platforms goes way beyond the old-fashioned problem of a couple of kids playing “dots” or tic-tac-toe in the back of the room. My physics teacher son-in-law and his colleagues have discussed buying a cell phone blocker and moving it randomly from classroom to classroom. (Alas, the current devices are still a bit too large to place inobtrusively on a restaurant table.)

As cell phone technology becomes more and more ubiquitous, schools will have to adjust their rules to keep pace. Many already have. I am curious to know what our readers’ schools have done to keep the presence of cell phones and their abilities to serve as cameras, games or text-messagers from disrupting or distracting from classroom activities. Is anyone else adopting the Abilene Christian University model and trying to co-opt the technology into becoming a teaching tool? 

Labels:

Further discussion on inequitable school funding

by Cheryl Chapman

On Oct. 6th, 2007, A+ Illinois, National Louis University, and the Golden Apple Foundation co-sponsored a forum on school funding.  The panel was moderated by Cornelia Grumman, Chicago Tribune Editorial Board.  Members included Chicago City Clerk Miguel Del Valle, Mr. Ralph Martire, Executive Director of the bi-partisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, Illinois Representative Kathy Ryg, national school finance expert Dr. Allan Odden, St. Charles SD 303 Superintendent Dr. Donald Schlomann, and Wisconsin Senator Luther Olsen.

Several questions came out of the discussion. Forum attendees wanted to know why taxpayers in wealthy suburbs should spend far less of a percentage of their personal property taxes than taxpayers in less wealthy suburbs, yet their teachers earn more money and their students have smaller class sizes. They wondered why students in schools with average to above-average funding have special classes like art, music, and p.e. taught on a regular basis by a specialist, not a classroom teacher, while children in many schools throughout the state get no “specials” at all, or must chose only one.  Finally, they asked why many districts apply for a yearly waiver of the state’s requirement that children have a daily p.e. class?  Why do some districts not even offer recess?

What became clear during this forum was that Illinois school children deserve better.  In fact, they deserve funding reform of a nature that will really help them.  The answer to all the questions was the same.  Inequitable state funding!

One year later, nothing has changed:

Fact:  Illinois has the 5th largest economy of any state.
Fact:  Illinois total state AND local tax burden, as a percentage of personal income, ranks only 48th in the nation, and we have by far, the lowest tax burden in the Midwest.
Fact:  Illinois ranks only 42nd in spending among the states.

A major factor in the problem of funding inequity is that there is also inequity in the state and local tax burden as a percentage of income. For you math teachers out there, and everyone else as well, the inequity is presented here in detail:

If you count sales tax, excise tax, property tax, income tax, total this up and
subtract the federal offset, you will find that the lowest 20% of Illinois taxpayers (earning less than $16,000 per year on average) shoulder nearly 13% of the tax burden.  The second 20% (average income is $22,600) shoulders 11%, the middle 20% ($38,500) has a 10%, the fourth 20% (teachers?  Average salary here is $61,100) makes up 9.2% of the burden, the next 15% (people making over $101,400 per year) pay 7.7%, the next 4% (income over $200,600) pay 6.3%, and the top 1% only use up 4.4% of their income on taxes.  So, the poorest pay the highest percentage and the richest pay the least.

The above statistics explain why, in a state in which the decline in personal income is the second worst in the nation, where manufacturing jobs are down by almost 25%, where over 27% of the state population is either uninsured or on Medicaid, where the gap in hourly wages between Whites and Hispanics has grown by 23.9% since 1980 and the gap between Whites and African Americans has grown 162.3% since 1980, nobody wants to raise taxes!  And this is why our state legislature can’t get itself together to do what is necessary for our schools, in spite of the fact that we live in the 5th largest economy in the nation and that we rank only 42nd in spending among the states.  Our antiquated tax structure just doesn’t work for us anymore.

Here in Illinois, a group called EFAB decides what our “foundation level” for core educational funding should be.  This group did some research and somehow figured out how much money it would take for 2/3 of Illinois students to pass the state tests.  2/3?  Why not 100%?  Well, they funded the “foundation level” at 51% of the level they’d chosen, and guess what?  51% of Illinois students meet state standards.  Apparently, you get what you pay for. What is needed in Illinois is a major tax reform. 

If we did have equitable educational funding in our state, we could be assured that all Illinois students would have the chance to get a quality education and Illinois teachers’ pay scales and per pupil spending would be more equitable as well. In addition, industry would be attracted to Illinois and jobs would be plentiful because we would have enough educated citizens to fill their demanding positions.

In the face of these facts and these challenges, you as a teacher can set your own goals.  Become active in a group that is trying to do something about this!  See what your teachers’ union is doing.  Spread the word – tell your students’ parents and your fellow teachers.  Get excited!  Get involved.  Visit websites to see about current legislation and write to and visit your state senators and representatives.  You can write to the U.S. senators and reps as well.  I don’t know how many times I have written to Sen. Obama and Sen. Durbin telling them that the ESEA/NCLB act should not fail schools, they should fail entire states!!!  Like ours!!!  For not coming up with enough money to educate our kids!!!  If important legislation is coming up, share it in your weekly newsletter home, and encourage your friends to join you in writing to your senators.  Join groups like A+ Illinois, the League of Women Voters, Voices for Illinois Children, Better Funding for Better Schools, and pay attention to groups like the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability.  Join with other Apples in working for reform. When tax reform questions come up, pay attention, and let people know what you think!  And if you are retired like I am, take a school day, and go knock on A+ Illinois’s door – they will be happy to have you!

Labels:

Same-sex classes growing in number nationally

by desertjim

This weekend newspapers across the country published a column by Ann Doss Helms of the Charlotte Observer about the continuing growth in the number of public schools with same-sex classes. There are increasing numbers of schools that separate girls and boys from middle school through high school.

Public school single-sex education seems to have begun in California. Governor Pete Wilson started a program in 1996 to create single-sex public schools in an attempt to duplicate the success of expensive private school programs. Six pairs of schools were created, but all but one pair had failed and closed by 2001. A Ford Foundation study proclaimed the effort largely a failure. The progam’s lack of success was blamed on badly designed programs, inadequate training in gender issues for staff and insufficient funding.

The failure of California’s experiment notwithstanding, there are now hundreds of gender-specific programs in public schools.Only six years ago there were about a dozen single gender programs in the public schools. Estimates now range from 360 to 450 schools offering gender-specific classes. In a few cases, entire schools are now single gender.  The current growth spurt in such programs began with a 2001 amendment legalizing single-sex education in contradiction to the original Title IX that required equal education for both genders.

In South Carolina, David Chadwell is the nations first state official in charge of single-sex education programs. He says that single-gender classes work best if they are optional, if teachers are well trained and if parents buy in. He also says that the teachers’ ability shapes the results.

Not everyone sees the single-gender classes as improvement. Last fall the American Civil Liberies Union threatened to sue the Cleveland school district saying the district’s five new single gender schools were discriminatory and that separate is not equal in education. The ACLU suggested the district would be better off recruiting “culturally competent” teachers, increasing teacher pay, improving school administration and making the curriculum more challenging. The National Organization of Women has also maintained that same-sex schooling would diminish the affects of Title IX.

Does the hope that single-sex classes for adolescents will reduce distractions and address different learning styles offer sufficient inducement to continue to expand such programs? I would be interested in hearing from teachers who have worked in such programs on the pros and cons of eparating students by gender.

Labels:

Read more in the archives»