Final Summary: The Seven Stages of Asperger's Awareness

I've been posting these stages over at my AspergersExpert site:

Here's a list of the previous posts followed by the final stage:

Bliss: The First Stage of Asperger's Awareness

Inkling: The Second Stage of Asperger's Awareness

Desperation: The Third Stage of Asperger's Awareness

Dawn: The Fourth Stage of Asperger's Awareness

Darkness: The Fifth Stage of Asperger's Awareness

Acceptance: The Sixth Stage of Asperger's Awareness

And Finally:

Celebration:

Can it be? Can a person with a neurological [disorder] like Asperger’s [syndrome] really celebrate their [infirmity]? I can. I do. So do others. When I wrote a post about my son disclosing his Asperger’s, he was excited—not embarrassed. When dozens of great bloggers choose to reveal their membership in the Asperger’s nation, they are not ashamed. We may be defensive, defiant, or overly zealous about our identity, but we are not ashamed of the truth. We are smart enough, secure enough, and gosh darn it—some people like us.

Learning to celebrate yourself is part of healthy human—spirituality, psychology and sociability. Whether in response to Asperger’s or something else, the seeds of self-acceptance yield the fruit of celebration. It is hard to live apart from the herd, for isolation is stressful. The laughter and casual affirmation of personhood is a balm to a wounded soul. When denied that social salve, we with Asperger’s can get cranky, dark, and dangerous. We are more likely to harm ourselves than others, but harm we do.

Celebration is the stage of surging up from self-acceptance to self-appreciation. From the steady breeze of acceptance blow gusts of celebration. We optimize the files at work, find the elusive bug in the software or design the perfect flow chart. We are valued, and we add value. That’s worth celebrating. In our Asperger’s we find an identity, not a disability. It is part of who we are; so after the darkness and emerging acceptance we celebrate our syndrome as part of embracing our undivided self. If you have ever fallen asleep with a sense of satisfaction—knowing you have observed, solved or created something new—then you are living in stage seven. Your celebration may be ever so private, but it is celebration all the same. Thank you. By accepting and embracing yourself, you accept and embrace all the citizens of Aspergia.

With celebration we gain a thicker skin and more energy for introspection. Freed from the dangers of darkness, we can explore our motivations and abilities without fear. The window of our blindness shrinks even more. With confidence and the courage of celebration, we come out to the world and our public sphere expands again. We speak, write, blog, and act on our behalf. We tell our story—if only to ourselves. But when we share with others, they respond to our new-found confidence and share back. That shrinks our hidden zone as well. The stage of celebration is good for our psychological development. It makes us better people and better friends.

As you might expect, celebration represents a restoration of appropriate self-esteem. The grid above needs another dimension; because the esteem of celebration is not the saccharine high of dawn. It is a steady faith in our own goodness and value. It is just as high, but it is far more deep.

If you love, serve, or are someone with Asperger’s Syndrome I applaud you. You are valuable and worth celebration. You deserve the love you get.

Reprise: Seven Silly Sins: How to Screw Up a Charter School Interview

This post is one year old today, but it generated a lot of grins last time out.If you're interviewing for a job at a charter school, read this, then go readTen Secrets for Interviewing for a Charter School Job.---------------If you want to blow the interview...1. Get lost and show up late. Sometimes we schedule interview teams on very tight timelines. Many charter school leaders are one-deep and don’t have time to waste, so spending ten minutes waiting for you sours the start of the interview. Show up late and you make our job easier than it should be.

2. Disclose character flaws. There is a big difference between an error in execution, an error in judgment, and a character flaw. A candidate who told us he cheated his way through high school geometry told us enough to say, “No thanks.”

3. Bash your last boss/school. We are eager to prune negative and disgruntled employees. Charter schools are small enough to feel claustrophobic. We don’t like to bathe in sour grape juice. Show us your critical side and we’ll show you the door.

4. Shine us on. If you inflate your resume, overstate your responsibilities, finesse your degrees, or otherwise engage in puffery, we will find out. We check references carefully because we can’t afford to hire badly.

5. Stay general at all times. When we ask for specific answers and stories give us platitudes and generalities. Fill the interview with sunny mush. If you can’t tell us how you did it, we can’t tell you to sign on.

6. Confuse us with private schools or our neighborhood district. The charter school movement is unique and has a particular identity and self-image. To survive, we are advocates bordering on zealotry so we react strongly if you get us confused with our cousins. If you misname us or confuse us with what we are not, we’ll invite you to go apply at one of those schools.

7. Make it all about you. Ask us about salary, request special exceptions, challenge the work hours, compare us to some more desirable job. Charter schools are all about us and we. Make it about you and we’ll give a chance to make a quiet exit.

Jack Welch did it at GE. Why not at schools?

Has Eric Hanushek been reading Jack Welch? Economist Eric A. Hanushek calls for "deselecting" 5% to 10% of teachers each year. The book, Creating a New Teaching Profession, is edited by Dan Goldhaber and Jane Hannaway. In a profession where roughly 1% or fewer are dropped each year, this is a radical idea.

Evidently, Hanushek believes that this alone could drastically change the teaching profession. It makes sense. Much has been written about the difficulty of firing teachers, even terrible ones. In a recent article, Patrick R. Gibbons of the Nevada Policy Research Institute states that Nevada terminated only approximately .6% of its teachers in 2008. Four states fired even fewer teachers than Nevada.

Some might argue with Welch's tactics, but they can't argue with his results. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that the education system is not getting the results we expect and need. If one argues against Hanushek, would he or she argue that we hire such great teachers that it would be inexcusable to fire 10% of them?

From test results to parent opinions, it's clear that teachers, while not responsible for all of the problems of education, bear some responsibility. It is really far fetched to think that 10% need to go? In fact, it seems entirely reasonable that the number may need to be higher.

Arizona Charter School Business Conference well attended

Two years ago Arizona's charter school association tried something different. They started a second annual conference with a focus on business and operations.

Today was a great day in Phoenix with over 250 participants. I met people from south of Tucson and from the northeast corner of the state near the New Mexico border. I met people who are starting schools and people who have been in schools for over ten years.

The center was buzzing with attendees interested in learning how to manage their schools better and for tips on learning how to manage a new school.

My presentations were "How to NOT bankrupt a charter schools" and "Growing your dream." The second session was on life cycle theory and financial strategies to think about at each stage.

Both session were packed.

The big issue is funding, and the association set aside an entire track for funding issues. In addition, there was a track on accounting issues covering Accounting 101 and 202 and Audit Preparation.

It's great to see schools in another state. As one participant put it, "We all have to stick together a bit. After all we are like one family, even if our schools aren't all the same. It's good for us all to do well."

Hats off to Eileen Sigmund, Andrea Plucker, Nicole Dennison for a successful Day 1 of the conference.

Is It Time To Blame The Students?

We’re all familiar with the idea of a false dichotomy. To promote one side of argument, pit it against something that is inherently inferior and unlikely to win support. Usually the false dichotomy is framed as an unfair either/or dynamic. In religion, theologians talk about divine sovereignty vs. human free will. Cooks pit flavorful against healthy. And to make the false dichotomy accessible to sports fans we can thank Bud Light for searing “Tastes Great—Less Filling” into our collective conscience.

Education has its own version of the false dichotomy—but not content to go head to head, educators on both sides of the traditional vs. reform divide attempt to co-opt students to their side. I suppose their thinking is that any position + students = morally superior. In an earlier post, my blogging partner Doug challenged the assertion that charter advocates use students as pawns. He was responding to another writer and pointed out that traditionalists also use students as bargaining chips (except when they forget.)

One unanticipated consequence of this false dichotomy is the implication that all students are all good all the time. False. Unfortunately, the desire to enlist students—at least intellectually—shields them from legitimate accountability for their participation and performance. If attendance, effort, and integrity are part of the problem in education, it isn’t fair to hold teachers, parents, reformers, unions, politicians, or the tooth fairy responsible. Students are responsible. When a student who can attend skips instead, that student is responsible. I’m not talking about students who are either incapacitated or mentally ill, (including depressed students) but students who could attend but choose not to—students who actively conspire in excluding themselves from learning. Students who give partial or no effort to classwork, exams and standardized tests are mostly or exclusively responsible for their behavior. When a student “airplanes” a bubble sheet, can we really blame their teachers or parents? It’s true that students who cheat—cheat themselves. Are adults responsible?

The truth is usually more complex than a blog, especially when it involves people. Traditional district teachers are not all ineffective or incompetent, even though a few are. Most charter schools are not run by parasitic privateers set to leach personal profits out of the public coffers, even though a few seem to be. And not all students are noble innocents deserving of unlimited generosity and opportunity. Some teachers, educational innovators, and even students are just plain rotten. I’ve spent most of my career in secondary education, so maybe I’m a bit jaded—and my compassion scales inversely with the age of the student. By the time a kid hits about 14, I hold him or her responsible for taking advantage of the opportunities that are there. I also hold students responsible when they act with disregard or violence against the interests of their classmates, teachers, and communities.

If a student drops out as a function of learned helplessness, I sympathize. If that same student would rather skip schoolwork and cut straight to some “easier” lifestyle, I have no pity to spare. Suburbanites who cheat, country kids who slack and city folk who skip are all co-conspirators in stifling their own future. When charter operators or traditionalist advocates claim nobility because they are for “all the students” I have to wonder about their intellectual integrity.

One of the problems with basing merit—either moral or financial—on students is that teachers can’t control enough of the student variable to deserve full credit or blame. The problem comes when any of us assume for full moral credit for “supporting the students” and then shrink from assigning fair personal blame for their academic struggles. Responsibility has two faces. Ignoring one half of the equation doesn’t make it go away.

Is public education like a cartel?

The Cartel opens Friday, April 30th. The movie argues that public education in the United States is held captive by a cartel. The cartel is not some sinister group of terrorists that can be spotted easily. The cartel is simply those politicians, school district leaders, and union leaders who protect their territory.

At a pre-screening in Denver about a week ago a group watched Bob Bowdon's new documentary. Bowdon was a TV host and journalist, who became suspicious of the New Jersey public schools as he reported on their dealings.

The movie uses New Jersey public schools as an example of what he believes goes on in public schools across the country. He shows how much attention is placed on protecting jobs rather than educating students. The movie gives examples, of corrupt building companies, unions that protect union members, even when they physically abuse students, and superintendents and politicians who line their own pockets. He also attacks the arguments against school choice, including charter schools.

The opening song sets the tone for the movie. One line is "Get me out of school, They're the ones who break all the rules."

One hint: If you go to see the movie, and you are under about 35 years old, search the internet for Yugo before you go.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: I've seen someone on Twitter saying that the movie bashes teachers. It does not. Bowdon very specifically says that there are lots of great teachers out there that need to be supported. This movie is about systems and the players in those systems.

Preposterous bill introduced by Brooklyn Assemblyman

Did you ever take a math class? Did you learn about the mistake of using averages to make too many conclusions about a population?

Well, apparently Alan Masiel didn't. The democrat from Brooklyn has introduced legislation that would close any charter school that did not meet or exceed the local district average for "students with disabilities and limited-English-proficient students."

OK. So the basic fallacy of averages can be shown in many ways. If in one group of people everyone was healthy, the average body temperature of the group would be 98.6 degrees. However, let's say that in another group we found that the average body temperature was 98.6 degrees, but half the group had a body temperature of 68 degrees and the other half of the group had a body temperature of 128.6 degrees. Are the two groups the same?

Also, there are many ways to get to an average. By definition, an average means that some schools are lower and some are higher. So, in the local school district surrounding a charter school, if the charter school were exactly at the average for that district, that would mean that some district schools would be service fewer than the average. Should we close those schools? I think that's only fair. Don't you? (I hope you said, "No.")

Now, it might make sense to make a law that a charter school should serve at least the same as the school with the lowest enrollment in the district. While I wouldn't agree with such a law, I would see the reason behind it.

So, let's look at why I wouldn't support even that law. The main reason is that some charter schools function in much the same way as magnet schools. Other charter schools use methods such as Expeditionary Learning, which is not popular with all parents, and simply scary to others. If a district had a school that was significantly different in mission and method than district schools, then it might make sense that parents with children with special needs would not choose those schools. It might be that such parents choose to keep their kids in district schools because they trust the district services.

This brings up one final point. Charter schools are schools of choice. Not all charter schools are able to create programs for a group of students who have special needs especially to market to those students. Just in case I didn't say that well, let me try an example. If I'm starting an Expeditionary Learning charter school, I may be perfectly happy to serve special needs students. However, I may not have the budget to market to special needs students and even if I do, they may not want to be in my program. I can't help that. It's the parents choice. So, instead of rewarding a charter school that is developing a positive outcome for many students, I shut the school down because parents of special needs students don't choose the school?

The bill is preposterous for many reasons: the fallacy of averages, the issue of parental choice. I think the bill is well intentioned, if it, indeed, has any intention of serving special needs students best. However, the bill has all of the appearances of having nothing to do with benefiting children. On the contrary, the sole goal seems to be to shut down charter schools.

Colorado Education Association: Does it know what works?

While Colorado has a relatively decent education system, that is only compared to the rest of the U.S. The Colorado Education Association (CEA) recently came out against a teacher tenure reform bill (SB 191). In its press release, the CEA says, "We know what works." To its credit, the union agrees that the teacher evaluation system is broken. Good for them. The question is "If they knew it was broken, then why didn't they pursue it themselves or sooner?"

The CEA says that they know what works. If that's true, then why haven't they taken action to fix the education system? Why is it that they've waited for charter schools to grow in Colorado? Why is it that they've waited until their own political party has turned against them? The bill is sponsored by a democrat and endorsed by a Governor who is a democrat. In fact, it seems as if the only organization left opposing the bill is the CEA.

I am sure that the CEA thinks it knows what works, and maybe it does, but it hasn't shown it by being proactive about the tenure and evaluation process. The CEA may want to cooperate, but it appears that it will only cooperate on its own terms and in its own time. No, I think it's time for change and time to force the CEA to cooperate. If it really knows what works, then let's have the CEA lay it all on the table with its own proposal--a proactive proposal that addresses all of the issues, including tenure. If it does that, then we'll be able to determiner whether or not the CEA knows what works.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTE: This blog post originally had a much more harsh title and ending. I decided to soften the blog a little because I wanted to be fair to the CEA. I really would like to believe that it knows what works (after all the CEA SHOULD know what works). I still believe that if unions (nationwide) know what works, then they ought to be doing it. That doesn't seem to be happening. So, my point stands. Either the unions know what works and aren't sharing the information and practicing it or they don't know what works. In either case, they are failing the children.

Why are people surprised about charter schools?

OK, here is an example. Over at Democurmudgeon, he posts a long quote from Diane Ravitch about the origin of charter schools and the evolution of that original idea that he calls an attempt to privatize education.

I've said it before, so what if the original idea of charter schools was to have small experimental schools run by teachers? The origin of the idea has almost nothing to say about what a concept should be at maturity, and the charter school movement doesn't claim to be at maturity.

Second, part of the quote from Ravitch is that charter school quality varies widely. Is that surprising to anyone? When you start something new, it's risky. When you allow new ideas, some work and some don't. In a laboratory, not every experiment pans out.

The other day I wrote a blog discussing cancer research and charter schools. Cancer research, from one point of view, can be said to be a waste of money. Billions of dollars have been spent, and still we have no cure. Some laboratories have had more success than others. I'm sure that some have failed miserably.

The problem is that we don't know until we try. Let's even stipulate that charter schools are an attempt to privatize education. Let's say that the goal of everyone in the charter school movement is to allow public funding for private schools. What if that is a better system than the dismal system we have now?

By all measures our system is failing, especially those in high poverty areas. There is currently no internal incentive for those schools to change. It is only with changes in funding and competition or threats of firings (which doesn't happen) that existing schools are motivated to change. (BTW, if you think my claim that the system is failing, then take the graduation rate of high poverty male students and then multiply that times the percentage of high poverty students who are proficient in math. Depending on whose numbers you use, you get something like 30% of high poverty students are proficient in math.)

If people were literally dying in the same way that high poverty students were dying academically, our nation would cry out for change. If my child were in a school like that, I'd be crying for just about any change that would work. People with cancer experiment with extremely risky treatment. People with HIV do the same. Why are we surprised when those who are dying are willing to try risky treatments for their children's education.

If privatizing education is what it takes to transition to a good education or find good educational methods, then it's worth it. There is nothing sacred about having a "public" education. There is nothing necessarily good about it. If you are worried that someone might profit from the "privatized" system, then you are probably worried about the wrong thing. If someone comes up with a great idea for education that revolutionizes our success, I'd say that person probably deserves to make hundreds of times more than those in education today that go along with a modicum of competence unchallenged.

Sure, go ahead and work with the current districts. Try to make them better. That's fine, but don't be surprised when people seek immediate relief from what ails them.

Denver School of Science and Technology's culture a big part of being in the hunt for an Obama commencement speech

Denver School of Science and Technology is one of six schools in the running to have President Obama speak at their graduation. For the competition, the students have written essays emphasizing the quality of their program and the diversity of students served. The school has approximately 70% ethnic minority students and almost 50% who receive free or reduced price lunches.

Director Bill Kurtz says, this diversity is one of the school’s greatest strengths. “We have all income levels, all levels of academic preparation, all ethnic backgrounds, and we come together into one community. In the world outside of our school race is a divider, but not in our school. It is a strength of our school.” Kurtz said that the White House web site would highlight this diversity as part of the students’ presentation. The students are proud of their diversity as well.
The students are especially excited about this. “They believe that have been a part of something very special,” said Kurtz. “They want to showcase the school they helped create. They want to win. They are focused on getting the President here.”

The schools outstanding academic reputation is part of what has the school in the running for a presidential graduation speech. The school has had 100% of seniors accepted to four year colleges and universities.

In addition, it’s developed a culture that is well known also. Kurtz says, “A strong culture is critical to any school or any organization. It’s essential to our success. We base our program on the view that every human being wants to be affirmed for his or her uniqueness—who they are. They also want to contribute something significant to their world. We try to recognize individual worth and performance, but also hold them accountable for the work they produce.”

He also said that just because students know DSST’s reputation coming in, they aren’t necessarily ready for it. “It takes some acclimation. We are a counter culture for most of the students coming in. By the time they are seniors, they know this is the way things should be. The students talk about the culture.”

DSST’s culture is built on six core values, and everything revolves around them. “The team lives on these values,” says Kurtz. The core values are respect, responsibility, integrity, courage, curiosity, and doing your best.

Kurtz says, “Everyone knows that we expect everyone to work as hard as they can. They know that we expect them all to be going to a four year college or university. High expectations are a big part of who we are.”

It’s those high expectations that make the students believe that they can succeed and that they can have the President of the United States at their high school graduation.

Schools Need More Worms! (And Sea Otters too…)

We need worms:

Not those kind.

Not these either—even though they are pretty educational.

We need polychaetes:

and a few Sea Otters:

What do I mean?

This is wierder than the idea that educators could ruin amusement parks.

This is dorkier than my lame homage to Charles Dickens.

Here's what I mean.

Marine ecosystems are complex and sensitive arrangements of life and resources. They thrive and deteriorate depending on the temperature, salinity, toxicity, and turbidity of the water—as well as seasonal and climatic fluctuations. I grew up on the shores of Kachemak Bay in Alaska, near one of the most biodiverse intertidal zones on the planet.

In one class, my great science teacher Hal Neace helped us transect a beach and conduct an inventory of life forms. There were more organisms than we could count, and we weren’t even looking at microorganisms or the life below the sand and rocks. The numbers and health of species are a criterion of environmental health. But, since there are so many species, it isn’t practical to track all of them. Because organisms are such an important tool for monitoring the health of an ecosystem, biologists and other scientists have identified bioindicators, which include species with special responsiveness to changes in the environment. The marine worms above, in addition to being beautiful, are typically very tolerant to levels of toxicity and temperature changes that are harmful to other life. The worms serve as an indicator species. When the worms start to die or decline, the ecosystem is going through major change. Worms are more of a lagging indicator, while other, more sensitive, organisms are leading indicators of changes in the environment.

Similarly, some organisms serve as keystone species. The Alaskan sea otter is a classic example. Sea otters eat sea urchins. Sea urchins love to feast on the kelp forest, especially the holdfast, the special structure that anchors kelp fronds to the ocean floor. When sea otter populations decline, as they did after overhunting by fur traders, the sea urchins lose an important predator. With less predation, sea urchin populations spike and the kelp forest dies. When the kelp forest crashes, it takes down an entire habitat for animals that live in the kelp column. The presence of the sea otter as a controlling predator supports the health of the entire ecosystem. Sea otters are a keystone. It’s no coincidence that my high school adopted the sea otter as our mascot. We understood the importance of the old man of the sea.

In schools, we need both worms and otters. We need to efficient ways to track the health of schools and students. The push for national standards, while well-intentioned, is doomed from the start. As Robert Marzano is fond of saying, if schools did justice to the minimum standards set by the academic disciplines, our K-12 system would rapidly become a K-23 system. Tracking a universe of standards, benchmarks, objectives, milestones, etc. sets teachers and students up for failure. At Ridgeview Classical Charter in Colorado—a perennial top five high school—the staff ignores the state standards. They challenge students to participate in the great conversation. The ability to synthesize centuries of philosophy, history and literature into a coherent conversation is a keystone behavior for secondary students. We can rely on the underlying knowledge and thinking skills without measuring them directly. At The Classical Academy, where I work, every senior survives a rite of passage called the hostile panel. Every student must take a position on a controversial topic—that’s not so hard. What’s hard is that the students must present and then defend their position in front of a panel of doctors, principals, teachers, engineers, professors and other experts in the field. We who form the hostile panels pull no punches. We challenge the students’ facts, their logic, their analysis and their motives. Students who makes it through are manifestly well-prepared for college. Most of them will never experience anything so tough unless they defend a dissertation. If students survive, they know how to research, write, present, and defend. The hostile panel is a sea otter. Where is thrives, learning is healthy. At the other end of the spectrum, there are behaviors that underlie virtually all effective learning. As my internet friend Deven Black, a special education teacher in New York brilliantly explains, the whole of learning can be summed up in, “I’m not sure. But…”

The ability to engage in curious, cautious inquiry is an indicator behavior for learning. When it dies, the school is sick and the students fail to thrive. Educational dystrophy is a function of learned helplessness. When student attempts to understand are met with apathy or incompetence, they shut down. Students who cannot read or question are in trouble, so it is right that we focus on literacy. Students who learn how to solve their learning problems can succeed, but they must believe that success is possible. That’s why the no-excuses schools are so powerful an indictment against the reflexive instinct of some educators to blame the family/economy/history of the students. Just as student confidence is an indicator, adults taking responsibility is an equally important indicator.

When people like Linda Darling-Hammond and Diane Ravitch pass the buck to the students, they are poisoning the learning habitat. When they opine that, "“You cannot assume that schools alone can raise achievement scores without addressing the issues of poverty, of homelessness and shattered families.” they are like rampant sea urchins chewing through the educational anchors of responsibility that can help students be successful. If you are a parent choosing a school, look for indicators and keystones. Look for adults who take responsibility and students who tackle tough challenges. When you find worms and otters and you will know that the educational ecosystem is thriving.

Governor Christie takes some of the heat off of me

Some people criticized me the other day for saying that non-charter public schools (i.e., traditional public schools) use kids as pawns. I was trying to mimic an opinion piece that accused charter schools of using kids as pawns in the political battle over school choice. My blog was intended to show that anti-charter people do the same thing or worse.

Now, Governor Christie in New Jersey (the state that is the example for most of the abuses noted in The Cartel, a movie by Bob Bowdon) has gone even further than I did. He accused the teacher's unions of using scare tactics and "using students like drug mules" to further their cause. I guess Governor Christie was just trying to cover my back. I'm glad he's taking the flak now instead of me.

Teacher pay shouldn't make better teachers. It should reward them.

A Chicago Sun Times article discusses the fact that higher pay doesn't cause better results. That is exactly what we've been saying. You don't pay teachers a lot because you think that they will magically become better teachers. You pay good teachers well so that you can retain them in the teaching profession.

There are two well known facts in the teaching world. One is that it's really hard to get rid of lousy teachers. The second is that teacher attrition, especially among good teachers, it really high.

Teaching is a tough profession. Not everyone is cut out to teach and not everyone can be taught to be a good teacher. Just as with any profession there has to be a way to distinguish the good teachers from the bad teachers. Strategically paying teachers according to their worth and abilities is one part of an overall reward system that can help keep better teachers in the system, and help adequate teachers decide if they want to become better teachers.

A strategic pay system can't be the only element. A good work environment with a competent (or better) principal is also essential. Loosening or eliminating the current tenure system is another element. Just like any other profession, teachers have to be susceptible to being fired or put on corrective action plans.

It should be no surprise that paying people more doesn't make them a better teacher. That would be to ignore the other variables and confuse the cause with the effect. The cause should be great teaching. The effect should be better pay.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See our earlier post, "Performance pay may not work..."

Curing the American education system: Like curing cancer?

"Today, nearly 40 years and $105 billion dollars of public investment later (the private investment can be considered to be at least a significant fraction the public investment), we are no closer to finding a cure. In fact, after adjusting for age and size of the population, the cancer death rate has dropped by only 5% in the last 50 years. Compare this with nearly 60% drop in the death rates of diseases like pneumonia and influenza. Why is this the case?"

This question about cancer research is similar to one that we could ask about American education. Why is it that so much money is spent with so little result? The answer to this question also gives us a glimpse into why we allow charter schools even though some fail at their task.

"Part of the reason is that cancer has multiple causes and we are not really sure about the true causal linkage between the various factors and the cancer cells misbehaving."

Like cancer, children are not all the same, but our educational system treats them as if they are. I do applaud efforts for differentiated instruction, but those do not get at the heart of a bad system.

In addition, when speaking of cancer research "The truly innovative approaches and especially the risky (from a success of the project standpoint) proposals have seldom obtained funding."

In the same way charter schools may provide the truly innovative approaches that are necessary to find the real answers.

Most institutions, such as the American public education system, are conservative by nature. They do not like quick or radical change. They look for incremental changes. They look to preserve what is because reaching for what could be might be dangerous.

Like cancer research, perhaps the reason to allow charter schools, and even support them more than we do, is that even with the small number of true failures, the innovations and the possibility for greater innovation must be allowed and encouraged to take place.

I've had too many friends of mine die of cancer over the past few years to not care about cancer research. I've also seen the results of tenured teachers and incompetent principals leading those teachers to believe that our current system doesn't need radical change. Change is difficult, but it may be the only way to reach our goals.

There is a new ed information site in town

Just a note that there is a new aggregator of ed opinion on information where you can post and read your favorite ed articles. It's called Learn Boost Education News. You can also vote for your favorite articles as well.

Check it out here.

Fishing for Students

Fishing for Students

I was born in Kotzebue and raised all over Alaska. By now I’ve fished in nearly every part of the state for all five of the wild Pacific species that spawn around Alaska. That's a saltwater King my Dad hooked up for me in Kachemak bay near Seldovia.

As a crewmember, and later as a captain, I harvested Chum Salmon near the Arctic Ocean. The run began as a steady stream sometime after the 4th of July and lasted into early August. Chum salmon don’t school, but they do like to run along the shallows near sandbars as they enter rivers and streams to spawn. For best results, fishers set their nets where the shallows break over to deeper channels cut in the river delta. Usually, we fished about 300 yards of six-inch gillnet set with heavy anchors on either end. That setup works well for chums, but occasionally we caught a feeder King Salmon or some stray silvers.

Far from Kotzebue, in the South and Southeast, there is a June-July purse seine fishery for Pink Salmon. Pinks are substantially smaller than the other species, and they tend to school up in the saltwater before heading upstream to spawn. Consequently, the most efficient way to harvest a whole lot of Pinks is to spot the schools from an airplane, and surround the school with a purse seine. Seining only works for Pinks—even the best captain would go crazy and broke trying to seine for chums. Setting gillnets will catch a few Pinks, but it just isn’t the smart way to go.

Silver Salmon are the next most preferred species for harvesting and table fare. They don’t school as much as Pinks and they don’t arrive during the height of the summer like chum—but silvers like to eat. So along with respectable seine and gillnet fisheries, Alaskan’s have learned to troll for saltwater silvers as they feed up before hitting the freshwater to spawn. Even in the river, silvers deliver some of the best sports fishing in the state. It’s easy to spend a day on a King Salmon river and never hook up, but if you are patient with Silver, you will get good action.

Red Salmon are the royal ingredient of the salmon smorgasbord. Early season Reds are featured in the best restaurants around the world, and paying $50 for an eight-oz fillet is a rite of spring for discerning diners. You can catch red’s by trolling or with a gillnet, but the same equipment that works for chums or silvers won’t make the grade for red salmon. Reds are sleeker and arrive in massive pulses of silver on the incoming tide. Around Bristol Bay, settnetters time the tides and work feverishly to pick fish out of the nets and set the nets back for the next tide. The tricks that work for all the other species are lost on the Reds, but learning to see Red has made millions for many and spread protein around the planet.

Finally, the King Salmon come home to reign. King Salmon are stocky, muscular fish. They may not have the intense flavor of the reds, the ease of harvesting of the pinks, or the cheap abundance of chums, but Kings have fans nonetheless. There is nothing like tying into a massive salmon in the prime of life and desperate to shake off and get about the business of spawning. With some tipping over the century mark, 100 pounds of fighting fish fill the dreams of salmon fishers everywhere.

But still, I’ve caught big kings, and I’ve watched my children reel in pinks till their arms were sore. Both are exhilarating and gratifying. Catching a feisty silver on light tackle is fun, but my favorite fishing memory of all time is landing a mid-size king on a set up designed for trout-like Dolly Varden.

So here’s the transition to the classroom. This is, after all, an education blog. As much as the five species of salmon are distinct and responsive to different techniques, our students are much more diverse and need more nuanced presentations. Many of us have been sent out with chum salmon nets to catch schools of pinks. Others are trolling for gifted and talented King Students using tackle designed for late-arriving Silvers.

Finally, and most importantly to me, remember that salmon don’t arrive at the same time. The salmon arrive when they are ready. No matter how perfect the technique, you will not catch many Silvers in early June. They just aren’t ready. Students are like that. Educators from Maria Montessori to the parents of Reggio Emelia submit their plans to the readiness of the student. As the proverb counsels, “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.” At the school I currently lead, we have students across a range of abilities. Some are 17 and taking high school algebra. Others are 14 and managing a full college schedule. The fish-kids are not the same.

As we are fishing for the best from our students, the greatest gaps in education are not performance deficits or ethnic disparities. The biggest missed opportunity is the failure to differentiate for groups and individuals. Too often we are guilty of teaching curriculum, not teaching students. With that in mind—do you want to go fishing?

Can Quisling Crist Lift Colorado?

In a stunning display of addled desperation, Florida Governor Charlie Crist today vetoed an education reform bill that would have limited teacher tenure and tied some aspects of teacher compensation to student performance. While not perfect, SB6 was the latest in a series of Florida reforms that have pushed the Sunshine State near the top of educational leaders. Florida students are making impressive gains in academic achievement and the achievement gaps in Florida are moving in the right direction.

So why did Crist reverse his support for the bill and deal a setback to the forces of school choice and accountability? My theory is that he miscalculated his chances of becoming senator—that or he has already conceded the election. Challenger Marco Rubio, Speaker of the Florida House, is riding a wave of anti-moderation and dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Along with national conservative media, Rubio has successfully positioned Crist as a quisling collaborator with federal leaders. Rubio's lead is solid, stable, and ranging into double-digits.

Meanwhile, Crist is a co-conspirator in his own demise. By vetoing an incremental shift away from traditional education, Crist has cemented his status as a moderate. Perhaps he thinks there are enough anti-reform advocates to help him close the gap with Rubio. Perhaps he's angling for a position with the Obama administration. Its hard to tell because the veto makes little sense. Florida ranked very high in round one of Race to the Top, and with movement on the issues of teacher performance and compensation might have strengthened its position for round two. Not now.

So—with one stroke of the veto pen, Crist alienates education reformers, validates the prevailing meme about his spine, and damages his state's chances at a major windfall. I wonder who's advising the governor.

Meanwhile, Governor Ritter in Colorado has already announced that he won't seek reelection. He has no electoral considerations, and the teacher's unions in Colorado are already lining up against teacher evaluation legislation sponsored by Michael Johnston, a Democrat. Freed from concerns about challengers, perhaps Governor Ritter can muster the courage to deliver what Governor Crist promised. In the RTTT evaluations perhaps Florida's regression is a window of opportunity for the Centennial State.

Ignorance is bliss, when you are a charter school opponent

I'm not sure what they are teaching these days at Bowling Green University, but one writer in their student paper needs a few lessons. In his article, Patrick Saunders argues that "Charter schools create unfair hierarchy."

However, in making this argument he inaccurately calls charter schools "private" schools. This is incredibly interesting as even the most ardent charter school opponents that I know agree that even if they aren't public schools in the same way as district schools, they aren't private schools in the normal sense of that word either. In fact, it's pretty obvious that they are much closer to public schools in their regulation and the fact that the employees are often considered public employees and most states require charter schools to conform to all or most operating and financial reporting requirements as district.

In addition, he claims that charter schools are "funded mainly by white-controlled non-profit foundations and white-controlled for-profit corporations" Anyone remotely familiar with charter school funding knows that almost all of a charter school's funding comes from public money. While some "white-controlled" foundations and corporations assist charter schools, that funding is never a majority of the funding. Why "white-controlled" is important escapes me a bit, unless he means that a "white-controlled" organization would never assist non-whites, which is absolutely false. The vast majority of grant money has gone to schools that seek to close the achievement gap between the poor and ethnic minorities and the more affluent.

Perhaps the more important point is the overall thrust of the article that somehow charter schools are inappropriately changing the definition of a "liberal" education. Of course, as many do, he writes as if public education is a glorious monument that should be set beside the many other monuments of our country. He writes as if that "liberal" education has never changed.

Mr. Saunders then asserts that parents have no input into charter school curriculum or agendas. This may be true in some schools, but in manifestly not true in others. In many state the reason that charter schools exist is to create more say by parents, not less. In other charter schools that have fixed curriculum and method, it's because they believe that method is proven. No one has to go to a charter school. It is not a school of default as is the district school.

By setting the existing public school system on a pedestal, Mr. Saunders ignores its many problems and because he focuses primarily on Ohio charter schools he ignores the variety of charter schools across the country. Because he hasn't done any research on the facts of charter school funding he is ignorant of the fact that charter schools are public schools as defined by many states. He is ignorant of the fact that they are "funded mainly" by public money, not private money.

I guess ignorance really is bliss, when it is folly to be wise.

Race to the Top dollars don't flow with priorities

One of the criteria for winning Race to the Top money was to support charter schools. Unfortunately, there was no demand that money that was awarded would be used to fund charter schools. So, the state that finished the race first may not be spending much money on charter schools at all. You can see it here. So much for Obama and Duncan's emphasis on charter schools. The article says that Tennessee charter schools are actually at risk of closure due to lack of funding. So, what is the $500 million for?

Non-charter schools use kids as pawns

At Times Union, Paul Bray wrote an opinion piece entitled "Charter schools use kids as pawns." Because I'm not very creative or thoughtful, I'm retitling his piece and sending it right back to him.

Bray states up front that he is a long time public school advocate. He says, in part, "I am a fan of public education. I think it is one of the pillars of our nation. From kindergarten through high school, I attended public schools in Albany. I appreciate what I learned academically as well as the civic and social values I developed." He goes on to talk about his parents (his father a school teacher, his mother a state Department of Education employee). In other words, he is defending his turf.

He then says, "Charter schools are run with public money and are generally exempt from curriculum rules and teachers unions. I see charter school advocates as more against teachers unions than for educating needy students."

It is an interesting hypothesis. However, his key evidence is the writing of Diane Ravitch, the former charter supporter and U.S. Education Department official who now opposes charter schools.

How any of the evidence for or against charter school success translates into charter school supporters begin more against teachers unions than for educating needy students is beyond me. It's readily apparent to me that all charter school advocates are very much in favor of educating children. In fact, I know a large percentage of the charter school leaders in Colorado, and almost all they talk about is educating kids. I've also know some of the state charter association leaders and have been to the past two national charter school conferences as a speaker. Many of us want reform in the unions, and I know some who are anti-union, but the goal is to develop excellent educational models.

One of the statistics used by Bray is that charter schools often have 50 to 60 percent fail to finish. I'm not sure where he gets those figures, as he doesn't tell us. It's also not clear if that is fail to finish school or fail to finish in the charter school. Could it be that some charter schools hold students to such a high standard that they choose to return to a traditional public school? I know of one school in my city for which that is exactly the case. Perhaps if high expectations were normal, then charter schools wouldn't have that problem.

Bray also cites Ravitch stating that, "they [charter school supporters] also fail to recognize that the best predictor of low academic performance is poverty -- not bad teachers." This is true if we look at the traditional public schools that Bray supports. However, there are many charter schools that have been successful with high poverty students. Mr. Bray doesn't address that. In his book, The Learning Leader, Douglas B. Moore discusses this very issue and gives examples of why school success is much more dependent on what adults do in the building than on what kids enter with (and that's not just in charter schools).

Reading Mr. Bray's opinion piece, I found that the arguments in favor of the traditional public system were really based on his long term relationship with it. He liked his education. His parents liked their job in education. He sees the public school system as a community builder. However, most of those arguments are irrelevant. There are many of us who were not served well by the public education systems, and we do not believe that our children or the children of others are served well by the traditional system. However, our tax dollars are taken from us to support a system that we believe needs real reform, not just a few improvements here and there. To deny us our rights, the anti-charter school people somehow distort and disfigure the information about the failing public schools such that even good charter schools all of a sudden look bad. It's as if they have substituted a curvy fun house mirror for a clear and true mirror.

In order to uphold their agenda to support the current ineffective system, they've lumped all charter schools together into one pot. That way they won't have to make arguments against the best charter schools. They won't have to examine the best charter schools and replicate their practices. They won't have to hold teachers to a higher standard. They can continue to make excuses.

Just as Bray qualifies his arguments by saying that public schools aren't perfect, I'll qualify my argument. Not all charter schools are cut from the same mold. It is important that chartering organizations do a better job up front with making sure that charter starters know what they are doing and what they are up against. It is important as charters reach the next stage that we begin to look at why the best charter schools are as successful as they are. However, let's not use children as pawns on either side of the fence. Let's look at the best of class in education and make better schools. And if some of that best in class education comes from charter schools (and we know it does), then let's not claim checkmate when all we've really done is taken a few pawns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have not seen the movie yet, but here is one person who agrees that the school system uses children as pawn. Have you seen The Cartel by Bob Bowdon?

No pay for additional degrees? Education schools are worried

The new Florida teacher pay bill would eliminate additional pay for additional degrees. The research on advanced degrees and teacher effectiveness is that there is very little correlation between the two. The Florida bill appears to be doing nothing more than following good research.

Teachers who love to teach, but who do not want to go back to school are probably elated. College and university teacher education programs are not. They fear that fewer people will seek masters and doctorate degrees if the bill becomes law. In the words of one education student: "I think colleges will suffer. If it doesn't matter if I have a degree, why am I going to waste my time and money to get one," said Michelle Moreno, who is pursuing a master's in reading education at Florida International University, west of Miami. "My master's is giving me expertise in my field, but if I'm not compensated, why do it?"

Of course, someone with a love of learning may go back to school for the degree or may pursue additional education by reading and studying on his or her own. Schools could use internal resources to assist teachers in gaining necessary expertise. There are many other ways for a teacher to gain expertise than obtaining a degree.

In addition, a new program, if structured correctly, would reward the results of characteristics of effective teaching. Teachers' incentive to pursue a degree or other means of expertise and effectiveness would be additional pay for the effectiveness. It would then be up to the school and the teacher to determine the most effective means of obtaining additional expertise. In many cases, it may be that a degree is not the most effective means of obtaining that expertise.

Teacher education programs might not be out of business, but could choose to restructure their programs to meet the real needs of teachers. In addition to masters and doctoral programs, they could develop a series of focused seminars or certificate programs for specific needs. That way teachers who need specific skills might be able to take a few courses here and there rather than be forced to get a masters degree that they may not need. The upside of this effort is that teacher education schools may begin to rethink their programs and provide courses and degrees/certificates that actually provide value to schools and make better teachers.