From the editor

Please make sure to read the first entry in this week's Blog Highlights farther below in today's newsletter. It's written by Celeste Archer, a veteran East High School teacher who will be moving away from Denver at the end of this school year.

As you'll see, Celeste is feeling unfettered with one foot out the door, free to speak her mind. After eight years of teaching in Denver Public Schools, she's frustrated that she's seen virtually no system-wide advancement. And, at the moment at least, one target of her frustration and wrath is people like me. Read and you'll see why.

Celeste makes some valid points. Too many of us sit around sucking our thumbs, gazing at our navels, and pontificating without spending time in schools working with kids. Simply visiting schools and observing  doesn't let us off Celeste's hook. She says that we self-proclaimed reformers and advocates need to spend time working directly with kids if we want to understand the magnitude of the challenges facing urban education. That way, she says, perhaps we'll actually be part of  the solution rather than part of the problem.

When I first read her piece, Celeste's words stung, as the truth so often does. And yet, as I thought about it over the weekend, I realized that those of us on the outside can and (at least sometimes) do play a valuable role, precisely because we're on the outside.

True, we may not have the daily, first-hand knowledge of teachers who work with kids countless hours each week. But I believe the perspective of outsiders, particularly those of us who study schools, locally and nationally, is valid, and occasionally enriches the debate.

I know that when it comes to education, everyone seems to profess expertise, and that part of the problem we face stems from the overabundance of cooks in the scholastic kitchen. To teachers, it must feel as if there's always some blowhard yammering at them.

Look at it this way: at least all the blather shows people care.

Central administrators also get annoyed with those of us on the outside. I know that some of what I've written recently about the Denver Public Schools new schools plan -- specifically, its flaws --  has rankled some people at 900 Grant Street. But the same argument holds. Of course many o f us who are commenting on the plan are not in on the strategy sessions or privy to the innermost thoughts of those making the decisions. We haven't read every document produced on the topic.  Still we have valid arguments to make.

I don't for an instant doubt the good will or good intentions of the people making these tough decisions. I, and others, do, however, question some of what they're doing, and how they're doing it. That doesn't mean  we're disloyal.

Yes, outsiders lobbing stones can be a royal pain in the butt. But stop for a moment and consider the alternative. It isn't pretty.

 What follows is the second monthly installment by Peter Sherman, in his first year as principal of Valdez School, which is being transformed into an ECE-8 dual language program.

--Alan Gottlieb

For teachers -- and principals -- learning by observing is highly effective

By Peter Sherman

Every week, we hold staff meetings and plan for professional development for our teachers within the constraints of many factors.  We hope that our meetings will compel teachers to be more thoughtful, more focused, and more selective about their practice, resulting in an increase in student learning and engagement. 

We often facilitate meetings modeling instructional techniques and using prescribed protocols.  It is hard to know what will actually help teachers in improving their practice, but we persevere.

A few weeks ago, I spent a few hours with some lead teachers from my school visiting other classrooms in our building.  I had few expectations for this learning walk, yet it resulted in a great conversation and experience with my teachers.  We had agreed to focus during our learning walk on looking for effective instructional strategies for English language learners.  Our goal was to both have teachers gain insight from their colleague's best practices as well as to identify strategies that we might adopt school-wide.

We clarified with our participating teachers some protocols about the classroom visits and reminded them not to be judgmental, but to focus their observations on the strategies.  I also prepped the rest of the staff to expect our visits to their classrooms. Several teachers were noticeably anxious about the prospect of peer observers.  Within an hour, we spent time in three different classrooms watching for effective strategies to help our English language learners.

As we observed in classrooms I felt a palpable sense of relief and exhilaration (yes, exhilaration) watching our participating teachers observe their peers.  I could tell that the teachers were gleaning ideas from their colleagues and that they were seeing the students from a new perspective.  Teachers are always on and rarely get the chance to observe.

As we returned to my office to debrief, we were all brimming with comments and observations.  We began by pointing out the strengths of our observed teachers.  So often as principals, we see deficits, omissions and areas that need improvement.  We often have a vision of where we want a school to go, and our focus becomes the difference between where we are and where we should be -- the gap, the missing parts, the problems. 

As our teachers began to share their observations however, they immediately brought up a long list of strengths that they saw in their colleagues.  We noted how well teachers had modeled, questioned and prepared for their student's learning.  It was refreshing to hear observations of classrooms that I have seen many times before, but on my own.  Our observations concluded by identifying several key instructional strategies that would support our ELL students.

Several teachers brought up how valuable it might be to have all of our staff go through this experience in our building.  I could see where this conversation might lead.  We then proceeded to discuss what that might look like, and the inherent challenges.  I pointed out that even if we could make the time to do this with another 20 teachers, the experience and conversation would not be replicated -- different teachers will have different perspectives, lenses and see different lessons. 

More importantly, it was pointed out that another group of teachers would likely come up with different conclusions and therefore different suggestions for future professional development directions in our school.  Input and leadership is critical. However, it is incumbent upon this group of lead teachers to share their experience and insights and then to lead by pushing our professional development agenda.  In the end we agreed to move ahead with the identified strategies and to continue holding learning walks.

The afternoon was not easy to arrange -- it required two staff members covering classrooms in order to release the participating teachers.  However, as school administrators, we can pretty readily make these things happen if we choose to.

My strategy for Valdez is to identify a handful of research-based strategies that we know to be effective for students learning a second language, and to implement them consistently, at every grade level and through every subject.  If all teachers become skilled with these strategies, students will experience classrooms where all instruction is designed to support them in content knowledge while acquiring two languages. 

This learning walk unsuspectingly compelled me to think differently about our professional development.  I relearned the simple value of colleagues observing one another and the added value of facilitating the observations with a particular lens and questions.  I also recognized an opportunity to push teachers to assume leadership roles with their colleagues to help the school-wide agenda. 

We will continue our Wednesday staff meetings, but I do so now with a new perspective.

Blog highlights

A teacher pleads: yakkers, shut up and help

Monday, November 19, 2007
Written by: Celeste Archer

As a teacher, I sense a huge disconnect between what is reported by experts, what is reported by newspaper correspondents, what is suggested and reported by think tanks (which seem to be fairly void of active teachers), what is "studied" and recommended by commissions and boards, what is reported or suggested by administrators, what is reported by orchestrated data and what is the true daily reality. 

It's to a point where it is very difficult to take any report seriously or with merit.

I'll never forget being given a data-driven” article on the successes of a school district outside of Houston " Aldine. Not only would I never teach there, I wouldn't allow my child to go anywhere near the schools there.  A close friend of mine in Houston and I were talking about the absurdity.  Her mom and brother had both taught in Aldine. The entire family got a huge chuckle when I told them that we were being given Aldine as an example to try to emulate. 

It seems the data there was orchestrated to paint a fairy tale " and that seems to be happening a lot.  After about the tenth "expert" presentation about districts and their "successes," about which I know a great deal and know very well not to be as reported, none of it rang true.

These days the winners in the world of education are the data magicians who spin tales and instill fear in politicians and business leaders.  At times, this blog feels like a supporter of these tales " and it feels like a punch in the stomach.  

It also feels like a bunch of old ladies having an afternoon bridge game " all the time talking about creating world peace or ending world hunger. A better use of their time would be to put the cards down and go work in a soup kitchen or enroll in a Compassionate Listening seminar or mentor in an urban school. 

Imagine if as much time as all you wonks spend in heady discussion amongst yourselves were spent in sincere conversations with those of us in the "trenches." Or imagine if all of you who spend your time writing the story and reporting the data " suspect data  at that " were helping to do more to create (change) the data? 

What all of you education advocates need to ask teachers is: when do you want me in your classroom and what are the names of 2 kids I can start with?  What if every "expert" was required to actually spend an hour or two each day in a school in a fashion other than observer or story spinner? 

What's the old saying - walk a mile in my shoes?  How much time do the experts at PEBC, Colorado Children's Campaign, Piton, Donnell-Kay, or League of Charter Schools actually spend in the schools, with kids? 

More time in schools might lead you to ask different and more relevant questions. Such as: Is teacher training effective in today's climate?  It's a question that deserves some honest exploration.  The only truly effective teacher training I've had post-grad school was the stuff I went and got for myself " Facing History is a good example.  I can call Fran Sterling or her assistant Heather from Facing History just about any time of the day and ask them for help with a particular lesson or student issue and they give it. Sometimes they drive over to East High with some primary documents or the perfect film that will help accentuate that day's lesson.  That's the kind of support we need. 

I've said over and over again " school reform is absolutely not rocket science.  I've got the perfect reform package all figured out.  Every single person in the district who is licensed to teach, teaches " even if it's only 1 or 2 classes in high school or part time in lower grades or teacher-assist in lower grades. 

This way, "downtown" duties become truly driven by real working day reality " not theory and pseudo-intellectualism. I'd love to see some top DPS administrators in a classroom next to mine with some of my students. I'd love the opportunity to teach my religion class and civics 3/4 of the day and then spend time developing curriculum or training younger/newer educators. 

But, as it stands, 900 Grant is a wasteland of ridiculous ideas and poorly executed plans.  Many central administrators have no idea what their ideas feel or sound like on the ground.  I'll bet they sound good coming out of their mouths and in meetings with business people or with school board members or with people just like you fellow bloggers. 

The reality, however, is that it isn't properly executed at any level after it leaves the minds of the conceivers.  The level of incompetence at the middle rung is shocking.   How come the top officials aren't sitting down and having honest conversations with those they are supposed to be supporting/serving? 

So why do you guys keep falling over yourselves to laud and applaud?  There's nothing to clap about. 

We're failing our kids. Everyone is failing them, from their parents to their school districts to their Hillary Clinton village " and I just don't see anything meaty coming out of the constant talk and constant rehashing of the conversation. 

Bottom line: there needs to be a serious reality check.  And the insidious chatter from the "education luncheon" crowd needs to be re-directed.  We need you guys " we just need you to shut up and put your time and money where your mouths have been.

Provocative questions at MetLife event

Thursday, November 15, 2007
Written by: Uncle Charley

Yesterday's downtown breakfast forum sponsored by the Public Education Business Coalition on the latest MetLife Survey of the American Teacher was an interesting event with informative and useful contributions from the four panelists. But the best part of the morning featured two stellar questions from the audience.

The first question hit a theme also addressed in a recent post here: the need to reformulate teacher pension systems. At the forum and elsewhere, statistics have been thrown around to try to highlight the extent of the teacher retention and turnover crisis. (The NEA has a real problem with this issue, but not how you might think.) The audience member posed the question of what structural changes we should pursue vis a vis our educational system to reflect the fact that many teachers don't enter the profession for a 30-year stint but work 5 to 8 years and reach their peak classroom capabilities.

The question seemed to elicit some agreement from the panel that salaries, pensions, and other incentives need to be restructured, though caution should be observed in tipping the balance too far toward expecting most or all teachers to pursue the profession on a shorter-term basis.

The second question really busted down the walls, such that no one on the panel really seemed ready, willing, or able to engage with an answer. But if we're going to think outside the box a bit, there's no reason to fear asking whether teachers unions ought to be dissolved and reconstituted as professional guilds to defend the profession rather than the practitioner.

Probably most unsettling to union officials in the audience was the source of the question, a man whose preface identified himself as someone who neither disrespects the teaching profession nor has any affection for Republican partisanship. But the question needs to be asked again and again. Perhaps a seminar devoted to the role of the teacher organization in Colorado would be worthwhile. Invite representatives of the various organizations (CEA, AFT, PACE, CEAI), other education practitioners, scholars, parents and outside observers to participate. Could we all begin to be honest in such a setting? You may say I'm a dreamer….”

A lot more could be written about the burdens teachers face and how to alleviate them effectively, as well. But time and space constraints forbid me to do more than present the questions which seem to represent the macro-options facing education policy: Should we hire more teachers at low salaries? Should we reduce the number of teachers but offer higher pay and performance incentives? Should we narrow the focus of what we expect public education to accomplish? Should we let the market decide?

Yes, I must fill my provocative quotient for the week. But I'm just following the lead of two terrific questions raised yesterday.

One Response to Provocative questions at MetLife event”

1. Jeff Miller Says:
   November 15th, 2007 at 3:05 pm e

Regarding busting down walls, I'd like us to reconsider what schools are supposed to look like. In the current system, teachers are expected to do only one thing: stand in front of a bunch of students and do a brain-dump. There's more to it than that, of course, especially among better teachers. But it's hard for teachers to get away from this model because we have somehow gotten the idea that this is the only way kids learn.

I'd like to see teachers more as facilitators of learning " teaching in the traditional way sometimes, but also being allowed to spend time collaborating with other teachers, consulting with experts on one topic or another and researching and contacting potential partners in the community who have knowledge to share and hands-on experiences for the students. This would make teaching a lot more interesting, which might attract more people to the profession and help with teacher retention. Community-based learning also makes school more engaging for students, and it makes schools more connected to their communities. (There's lots of evidence of this in the service-learning literature.)

Teachers could collaborate with one another and with their students to research community needs. Younger students could help meet those needs through direct service, while older kids could conduct research and present possible solutions to those needs in the form of reports or public presentations. (Again, there is precedent for this.)

Not only does all this make schools more interesting places, which benefits students and teachers, but it also might help mollify conservative critics who are always yammering about their tax dollars and about how teacher education programs are a crock because anyone with subject knowledge can teach. Schools would be contributing to their communities, so they wouldn't just be sucking up tax dollars, and they would be using non-educators in the community as resources.

So to get back to your question about teacher pay, the number & quality of teachers, etc., I think this kind of restructuring of education would open up lots of different ways to be a professional educator, which would give us the opportunity to devise lots of different pay and performance incentives. I think until we can rethink what it means to be an educator and force the unions to try to represent a more occupationally diverse membership, they are not going to change dramatically.

D.C.'s Rhee-form dynamo

Monday, November 12, 2007
Written by: Alan Gottlieb

I'm attending the Public Education Network annual meeting in Washington, D.C., and I just heard an uplifting talk by Michelle Rhee, the new (four months) chancellor of the D.C. Public Schools.

Until May, Rhee was founder and CEO of the New Teacher Project, and a Denver-area resident. As she described it, she fell into this new gig after having dinner at a conference with D.C.'s deputy mayor to feed him some names for the chancellorship.

The D.C. schools are arguably the nation's goriest public education train wreck; calcified by bureaucracy, engorged by political patronage, mired in abysmal achievement. It seemed strange that Rhee, an intelligent and driven young woman, would even consider taking the job.

It's a culture of compliance, but we're out of compliance with everything, she wryly acknowledged.

But when you hear her talk about it, after four months, it begins to make some sense that she took on the challenge. Mayor Adrian Fenty promised her his full support, and he has kept that promise. he's unlike any politician I've ever met, Rhee said.

In the earliest days of Rhee's tenure, Fenty called a cabinet meeting and told the assembled department heads: The only person allowed to say no to the chancellor is me. He made it clear, she said, that if Rhee called with a request, any city department would snap to attention and deliver.

A few weeks in, Rhee ran into some roadblocks thrown up by various city fiefdoms, so Fenty called them together again, told them he was serious and pledged to fire anyone who got in Rhee's way. Since then, she hasn't had much trouble with the city bureaucracy.

The school district bureaucracy is another story. Rhee has brought a bill (still not voted upon) before the city council to make all central office workers at-will employees (as in they can be fired at will). An 11-hour city council hearing ensued, during which district workers complained that the proposed bill was unfair, inhumane and lacking in due process.

Well, where has the due process been for the kids all these years? she asked yesterday's audience. They can't exactly demand a tax refund for their parents because of inadequate education.”

In these first months, Rhee has taken a highly personal approach to the job. She said she regularly strolls into the human resources department (traditionally an urban school system's most dysfunctional appendage) and clears the waiting room by going from person to person and solving their problems, which more often than not are extremely simple.

One woman needed copies made and had been waiting hours. Rhee took her forms and copied them. A worker who was six months pregnant and needed to fill out some forms was being sent home to print them on her computer. Rhee took her up to her office and let her use the chancellor's computer.

Long-term, this obviously isn't a solution, she said. But until we build central office capacity, it sends a powerful message about where we're headed.'

Fixing the massive achievement gaps and rock-bottom achievement will be even more difficult than reforming the district culture. But Rhee exudes optimism. She said that members of the business community have praised her energy but predicted that she will fail, because the task is impossible: the environmental conditions these kids come from are too difficult, they say.

Rhee's answer: if there has been a failure, and there has, it's been among the adults in the system, not the kids.

5 Responses to D.C.'s Rhee-form dynamo”

1. Quique Says:
   November 12th, 2007 at 7:20 pm e

She sounds great, Alan. And I do think she'll make things better. But if you had to weigh in (like the DC business community has), what would you predict? Do you agree with her conclusion, if there has been a failure, and there has, it's been among the adults in the system, not the kids.”? Or might there also be a failure that can be placed on a society that allows for children to grow up in such dire poverty? And might it be that failure that makes the task (of giving these kids true equal opportunity for success) impossible?

2. Alan Gottlieb Says:
   November 12th, 2007 at 7:42 pm e

Well, Quique, that's the heart of the matter, isn't it? But when I think that way I tend either to wallow in despair or become so apoplectic that I'm immobilized. Better to chip away where you can make an impact than to let the magnitude of the overall challenge overwhelm you.

3. Quique Says:
   November 12th, 2007 at 8:34 pm e

I think you've offered the only reasonable response to my question, Alan!

But what troubles me (beyond the obvious) is that Rhee seems to be ladling a very large dollop of blame on the adults working in DC schools. Perhaps some, many or most of these adults deserve criticism. But is it reasonable or fair if Rhee " for good political reasons, perhaps " refuses to identify the society failures around children in poverty, instead attributing all failures to these adults?

4. Alan Gottlieb Says:
   November 12th, 2007 at 8:43 pm e

She was careful to say there are many wonderful and effective teachers and administrators as well as a lot of dead wood. And I'm not sure I've ever heard a superintendent talk about societal woes being at the root of kids' school failure. These days, regarding education, no excuses is the rallying cry from both the left and right. No superintendent with an ounce of political savvy wants to buck that tide.

5. Quique Says:
   November 13th, 2007 at 4:45 pm e

Yes, that is true. Too bad political savvy has to run so counter to, y'know … reality.
Oddly, given the topic of concentrated poverty, the security code I'm being asked to enter below is GETO”.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comment form