Progress on Mathematics Reform

Two years ago, MCEA members were raising serious concerns about acceleration and sequencing in the mathematics curriculum. Discussions were held by MCEA's Councils on Teaching and Learning with representatives of the MCPS administration. As a result, the Deputy Superintendent created a "K-12 Mathematics Work Group" to explore the various and complex issues involved.

MCEA's President - first Bonnie Cullison and subsequently Doug Prouty - was a continuing participant. In addition, MCEA members were represented by six classroom teachers as well: Teresa Brown, Viers Mill ES; Karen Emmerich, West MS; Jeff Flowers, Poolesville HS; Natalie Howard, Strathmore ES; Ed Hsu, Magruder HS, and Dawn Lemon, Montgomery Village MS. Numerous parent representatives, principals and administrators also participated. They all put in untold hours researching and discussing best practices and national standards.

The Work Group Recommendations are being presented to the Board of Education on Tuesday 11/9. You can view the entirety of the Work Group's report online. The 11-page Executive Summary provides an easily accessible overview.

The recommendations were also reported on in last Thursday's Washington Post:

Montgomery County admits kids were pushed too hard in math
Washington Post, Valerie Strauss
     The highly-touted Montgomery County Public School system in Maryland has just admitted that it has been pushing a lot of kids to do accelerated math when they weren’t ready for it, and now will stop it.
     Many thanks to all the MCEA members who contributed to this system-wide assessment of the K-12 Mathematics program. Through surveys, focus groups, and feedback sessions, hundreds of educators helped identify the concerns and shape the recommendations.

There is still much work to be done. But this Report marks a significant step in responding to the concerns MCEA members began raising almost two years ago.

Tom Israel
MCEA Executive Director.

Statewide Teachers Association Approves MCEA Proposed Opposition to New State Regulations on Teacher Evaluation

Earlier this month, MCEA President Doug Prouty submitted the following motion to the statewide convention of the Maryland State Education Association (MSEA). After a productive discussion of the proposed state regulations, the delegates to the convention voted overwhelming to approve the proposed motion.

"The MSEA 2010 Fall Representative Assembly takes a position of opposition to the proposed Maryland State Board of Education regulations regarding teacher evaluations and certification. These regulations, we believe, are in conflict with the Education Reform Act of 2010 and abrogate the rights of local school systems and associations to bargain evaluation systems which address the needs of their students. MSEA will work with the local associations to inform state Board of Education members, local Board of Education members, parents and other concerned community members of the deleterious effect these regulations would cause for students due to the increased in number of tests to which they would be subjected."

Rationale:

Currently, students take the HSA and MSA tests in seven of their 13 years in public schools in Maryland. These tests are administered over the course of seven days. Most students are engaged in taking the test for a half day on four of those seven days. The proposed regulations would double the amount of state testing to which students are subjected to include every grade level in elementary school. At the secondary level, the regulations would more than quadruple the amount of state testing for students in a traditional seven period day from six in middle school and four in high school to twenty one in middle school and twenty eight in high school. Although the increase in testing envisioned in these regulations is not spelled out specifically, the intent is there. The regulations call for teachers’ evaluations to include a student growth component every year. The regulations make clear that the HSA and MSA test results will be used for the teachers who teach those grades and subject areas. In order for the evaluation system to be fair, equivalent tests will have to be developed and implemented in all grades and subjects not included in the HSA and MSA tests- otherwise the evaluation system for one set of teachers will be vastly different from the rest. Such an evaluation system would be untenable. The increase is even more astounding given the fact that students do not directly benefit from the results of the HSA and MSA tests. The results are received by schools after the year has concluded and the students have moved onto the next grade. Is it conceivable that increasing testing in this way would result in anything other than even more lag time between the administration of the tests and the results being returned to schools and students?

Also at issue is the loss of instructional time that would result from such an increase in testing. Teachers, parents, and students have been alarmed by time already lost to test preparation and administration under the current regime of tests mandated by NCLB. Tests cannot and should not replace active learning time engaged with one’s peers under the guidance of a highly skilled teacher. There is a significant risk of demoralizing those students who these regulations ostensibly seek to benefit the most- poor and highly mobile students. These students already perform below their peers on such tests- an increase in the number of these tests would lead to greater disengagement from school at a time when we are focused on reducing dropout rates and when earning a high school diploma is even more critical to a child’s future.

Beyond the effect on students, many issues regarding the use of standardized tests for teacher evaluation exist. Primary among these is the fact the tests being considered for use in teacher evaluation are not intended to be used nor are they suited for that purpose. A briefing paper issued on August 29, 2010 by the Economic Policy Institute entitled “Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers” and coauthored by nine nationally recognized researchers on education policy states:

The paper goes on to note concerns in numerous areas including statistical misidentification of effective teachers, disincentives for teachers to work with the neediest students, and less teacher collaboration.

Most secondary school teachers, all teachers in kindergarten, first, and second grades and some teachers in grades three through eight do not teach courses in which students are subject to external tests of the type needed to evaluate test score gains. And even in the grades where such gains could, in principle, be measured, tests are not designed to do so. Value-added measurement of growth from one grade to the next should ideally utilize vertically scaled tests, which most states (including large states like New York and California) do not use. In order to be vertically scaled, tests must evaluate content that is measured along a continuum from year to year. Following an NCLB mandate, most states now use tests that measure grade-level standards only and, at the high school level, end-of-course examinations, neither of which are designed to measure such a continuum.

In an interesting note, the paper states that:

There is no perfect way to evaluate teachers. However, progress has been made over the last two decades in developing standards-based evaluations of teaching practice, and research has found that the use of such evaluations by some districts has not only provided more useful evidence about teaching practice, but has also been associated with student achievement gains and has helped teachers improve their practice and effectiveness.

The proposed regulations on certification seem designed to bolster the proposed new contract for the Baltimore City Schools, despite the fact that the contract has not been ratified nor have any other school systems in the state even begun to consider such changes to their contracts. These regulations also could endanger the due process rights of MSEA members and, again, abrogate the rights of local school systems and associations to bargain salary schedules that work best for the students of each county.

Such systems exist in the state of Maryland, one such is the comprehensive Teacher Professional Growth System used successfully in Montgomery County for 10 years. Such systems document the actual classroom performance of a teacher and offer structured support to help a teacher improve. If improvement does not occur at a level sufficient to meet the rigorous standards, a teacher faces non-renewal or dismissal. This system has helped thousands of teachers improve their craft in their first year of teaching (as all novice teachers are included in the Peer Assistance and Review program automatically) as well as teachers in their thirtieth year of teaching. This system is accepted, indeed embraced, by the teachers of Montgomery County because it is perceived as fair. Given the questions about every aspect of using standardized test results in the way these regulations propose, would the new teacher evaluation system ever be perceived as fair? It is unlikely.Finally, the proposed regulations on evaluation go well beyond the Education Reform Act of 2010. It is clear that the governor and the legislature debated and rejected the arbitrary percentages that student growth is to count in a teacher’s evaluation that are included in the regulations. The Board of Education should not and cannot supersede the will of the legislature.

Don't Scapegoat America's Teachers

Congratulations to Randi Weingarten, President of the AFT, for this well written op-ed piece published earlier this week in the Washington Post:

Last week in these pages, a group of school superintendents -- two of whom, Chicago Public Schools chief executive Ron Huberman and D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, have just announced their resignations -- laid out a "manifesto" for fixing America's schools. Although lofty in its stated aim to set a course for improving public education, the manifesto offered few concrete solutions, with one notable exception: shifting the sole responsibility to teachers. Sadly, such a view ignores both the full extent of the superintendents' own responsibilities and the reality that many factors affect children's success.

We at the American Federation of Teachers would suggest a different approach. Let's come together -- teachers, superintendents, principals, parents and community members -- and develop a joint manifesto about how to best educate all of our kids. After all, superintendents have a responsibility not only to demand excellence and accountability from others, but also to ensure that teachers have the resources to help their students succeed.

Educating children is complex work. No one approach will provide all children with the first-rate education they deserve. So we must simultaneously build on what works and fix what's broken, much as high-performing school districts and nations with high student-achievement rankings already do.

In that spirit, here is our vision for how to create great schools for all children.

Collaboration matters.

Earlier this month, the AFT brought superintendents, elected officials and teachers union leaders from 35 districts across the country to Washington to compare notes on successful reform efforts. Although such teamwork and shared responsibility rarely make headlines, they are the essential ingredients for lasting change.

In Lowell, Mass., for example, collaboration between teachers and management has significantly raised student achievement. In Hillsborough County, Fla., district and union leaders worked together to overhaul teacher development, mentoring and evaluation practices, also leading to significant achievement gains. While the tactics vary from district to district, these success stories share a common approach rooted in collaboration, or what one union president and her district superintendent call "solving problems, not winning arguments."

Great teachers can be developed.

Not everyone is cut out for the classroom, as the superintendents' manifesto rightly noted. But the manifesto missed key points: It can take new teachers time to reach their full potential, and it can take other teachers time to adjust to changing demands. The AFT has worked with experts and educators to create a framework for teacher development and evaluation that is being implemented in more than 50 school districts. Its purpose is to enable new and struggling teachers to improve, to help good teachers become great ones and to identify those who should not be in the profession. Effective evaluation systems can provide the feedback necessary to spur improvement, as well as an objective standard for high-stakes decisions about which teachers just shouldn't teach, rendering moot the issue of whether tenure protects bad teachers (as some people claim).

In focusing so intently on what we ourselves have decried as the "glacial" process for teacher disciplinary proceedings, the superintendents ignored another serious problem that has a dramatic effect on educational quality: turnover. Nearly half of new teachers leave in their first five years, a churning that costs American school systems $7 billion annually. Turnover has a steep educational price tag, as well. Research shows that teachers are most effective after they have three to five years' experience. While more must be done to prepare teachers before they step into a classroom, supporting and retaining good teachers is both an educational and an economic imperative.

Teachers need tools and support.

Educators can't do their jobs well without opportunities for meaningful professional development, an effective curriculum and adequate working conditions. The AFT and other unions try to do our part, but we are ultimately negotiating with others to secure what teachers need. That's where superintendents and principals come in. They have a responsibility to ensure that teachers have the tools to help students achieve excellence.

High standards are important, but they're just a start.

The AFT supports the Common Core State Standards Initiative, an effort coordinated by the National Governors Association's Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Thirty-six states plan to adopt this initiative. If implemented properly (no sure thing, in this time of austerity), these standards can help correct the serious problems that are a legacy of No Child Left Behind, including a narrowing of the curriculum and an overemphasis on preparation for standardized tests.

But such standards are meaningless without training and assessments aligned to them and, crucially, without time for teachers to prepare for them and for students to achieve them.

We must innovate -- and imitate.

It is essential that we explore promising new approaches. At the same time, we must replicate and expand established, proven programs. Because there are endless ideas about how to improve teaching and learning, it is crucial that we look to the evidence. Where we see success, whether in public, private or charter schools, we should learn from it. And we must follow the lead of top-performing countries, such as Finland, replicating their best approaches.

We accept and expect accountability, but we also demand shared responsibility.

Accountability is a tool, not an endpoint. Our aim should be to help all children succeed. But when accountability, rather than shared responsibility, becomes the goal, the focus shifts to how to do better on tests. In its recurring emphasis on "performance," the superintendents' manifesto missed this crucial point. Everyone with responsibility for our children's education and well-being, including teachers, administrators, elected officials, parents and students, should be held accountable.

Teachers can't do this alone.

Public schools have an obligation to help all children learn, regardless of parental engagement, native language or family income. But to succeed, educators need help. Consider the District, where three out of 10 children were living in poverty last year.

That's why "wraparound services," such as safe and enriching after-school programs, health services and tutoring, are so essential.

As Jonathan P. Raymond, the superintendent of the Sacramento public schools, wrote recently: "We have to stop blaming teachers for problems that have multiple causes, ranging from poor administrative oversight and accountability to a lack of parent engagement. I know how hard teachers work to educate every child and challenge students at their ability level. We need to work equally hard to give our teachers the tools and supports they need to be successful. Let's stop scapegoating and come together to find solutions that work."

We must keep the public in public schools.

Strong schools help create vibrant communities, and engaged communities in turn help our schools thrive. Our children's educations should not be the sole provenance of any one group, whether administrators or teachers. Parents, faith communities, business leaders and others are critical to a successful public school system. All must be partners in ensuring that every child gets a great education.

No one, least of all those of us whose life's work is public education, will be satisfied until we have helped all students prepare for the demands of our ever-changing knowledge economy. Getting to that point, particularly during one of the toughest downturns of our lifetimes, will require that we all do more -- and do it together.

The Bottom Line on Teacher Pensions

It's no secret that funding for the state teacher pension plan is going to be controversial in the next session of the Maryland General Assembly come January. Last year, Senate President Mike Miller put on a full court press to shift the pension costs from the state to the counties. What he got was a study commission that is scheduled to report back out before January.

Unfortuantely, Miller is focussed on the wrong problem. His concern appears to be limited to offloading the costs from the state to balance their books - regardless of the impact on county budgets. But he misses the underlying problem of ensuring the long-term financial health of the plans.

As recently as 2000, the state pension system was fully funded. As of last summer, the funding status had dropped to 64%. Simply shifting the costs does nothing to address this funding shortfall. So what caused the drop?

It's fairly simple. There are four reasons:

1. Investment losses. To quote the well-worn cliche: "it's the economy stupid". Like every pension and retirement plan in the nation, the Maryland pension system has been battered by a drop in investment returns (-20%) and asset value (-22%) in the last year alone due to the recession.

2. Accouting gimmicks by the state. In 2002, the state mandated a "corridor funding formula" that served to reduce the annual cost to the state. No other state in the nation using this technique, and the result has been to artificially lower the State's contribution to the plan.

3. The fund is underperforming.  A recent report compared the performance of the Maryland plans to those in other states, and found that the Maryland plan "has significantly trailed the median investment returns of its peers to the tune of $3 billion over the last ten years" and that the substandard results "may be the result of asset allocation decisions, manager investment selections, or both".

4. Salaries have gone up. Not in the last three years, but they are higher now than in 2000. This is in no small part due to funding incentives provided by the state (the Bridge to Excellence, etc.). Salaries are negotiated locally - but we shouldn't forget that it is the state that a) sets the benefit levels, b) uses 'corridor funding' to underfund the plan, and c) chooses the investment managers.

The state's "Benefits Sustainabilty Commission" has begun work, and there are a number of useful reports at that link for those interested in reading in more detail about these issues. It's important for them to understand how we got here as they ponder their recommendations. Simply shifting the costs to the counties does nothing to address the funding problem. Something needs to be done to ensure the long term financial health of the plans, but let's not blame the victims.

In the last few years, teachers have increasd their annual contribution to their pensions from 2% of their salaries to 5% of their salaries. We are doing our part. But we didn't cause the recession. And it's the state that is responsible for its accounting gimmicks and poor investment management.

Tom Israel, MCEA Executive Director