Comments (0)

By Kyle, December 9, 2011 5:18 pm

The Beach Boys – I’ll Be Home For Christmas

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Dear Santa: I apologize in advance for the wonkiness of the following item on my 2011 Christmas list.

So I’ve ranted plenty on this blog about the travesty that has been the manner in which education management organizations have analyzed data in recent years.

The good news is that at least our district is starting to take data a bit more seriously now. For example, up until last April, the only way to gauge a school’s performance was the results of the California Standardized Test results, which as everyone realized, but no one admitted, was largely a function of the incoming performance of the students at the schools.

In a vast, but far from perfect, improvement of data systems, LAUSD has begun having the value-added (LAUSD calls this Academic Growth Over Time, or AGT) conversation, which, despite its potential shortcomings, actually is the right conversation to be having. In a revolutionary affirming that there are non-school factors that influence student outcomes, the value-added conversation attempts to isolate school factors by controlling for these non-school factors (see below).

However, a more detailed reading of the LAUSD FAQ sheet reveals its own internal shortcomings, particularly in the way it fails to differentiate in the continuum of socio-economic status, and rather relies on the arbitrarily defined and broadly categorized partition of “Free or reduced lunch status”, as well as the potentially ignored data on peer-effects. The district does admit that more precise measures aren’t included because data for it cannot be gathered.

So if this is the status of things, then what better data could I possibly wish for?

Well Santa, if you’re listening, I’d like some fresh ideas on how to include better data in these measures, which might include new and innovative ways of measuring them. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of the district implies that these data metrics are not only solid, but are as good as we’ll ever get. This has resulted in posturing that wants to place an arbitrarily high weight on this portion of an individual teacher’s evaluation. My issue with allowing the AGT to initially have a 30% weight is that it assumes that this metric has no room for improvement. I highly doubt this. We are in right at the start of this discussion, and with time, the data metrics will be better, the applications will be more appropriate, and as a result, better data will be had. Until that day, however, the usage of AGT should start small, and then, with improvement, be given a greater weight.

So Santa, with this rant, I’m hoping for a bit of modesty among ed-policymakers. Please give them a bit of humility as they apply data metrics to our schools and our teachers, realizing that current data, while a good start, may be far from perfect. Santa, help them to make policy decisions that actually allow room for the improvement of the data metric.

So Santa, for Christmas this year, I’d like better data!

Comments (0)

By Kyle, December 5, 2011 5:03 pm

Sufjan Stevens – Christmas In the Room

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

For all of the criticism unleashed upon the 2010 film Waiting For Superman, the filmmakers did manage to get a few things right, one of which was highlighting The Harlem Children’s Zone. While HCZ can be considered a school-system in the same vein as many charter schools across the country, what distinguishes them from their counterparts is that they have had an honest conversation about all of the factors that are influential towards towards students’ success, rather than simply the school-factors.

In a day and age where so often the two “sides” of the education reform debate simply lash out at each other in caricaturish villany. HCZ, while being far from a panacea, actually seeks to bridge this gap by saying first, that yes, family factors do play a HUGE role in student outcomes, but also that that is no excuse to do nothing. While HCZ does have schools, it also provides Baby-Parenting workshops, Toddler parenting classes, pre-kindergarten, as centralized access to local and community health services and initiatives.

So Santa, my next item on my list is this. Will you please community with local policy makers and school developers, that while the HCZ model surely shouldn’t be copied, the same ideas of connecting parent education, school systems, and health services absolutely should be part of the conversation here in Los Angeles, and then perhaps on a wider scale.

Until we’re able to finally provide a unified system that works with and for families, then we’ll be spending an inordinate amount of time, energy, and effort seeking to define where these false partitions should be drawn and which levels of blame responsibility should be chalked up to whom.

Is it family issues, or health issues, or schools that influence kids? The answer, according to HCZ, and hopefully according to LA, is a resounding “yes”.

Comments (0)

By Kyle, December 3, 2011 7:15 pm

RUN DMC – Christmas in Hollis

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Tip O’Neill had it right. All politics IS local. And here in Los Angeles, 7 of the most powerful folks, the LAUSD Board of Education, are consistently elected by less than 10% of voters.

These folks set budgets, determine teacher layoff numbers, authorize data systems, approve new schools, close schools, and even hire the superintendent. The effects of the decisions of these seven individuals ripple throughout the community of Los Angeles, for good or for ill.

So Santa, my next item on my Christmas list is that you’d please, please, please increase the voter turnout in out school board elections so that the folks really are serving a representation of the public they are charged with serving.

Now, I know, Santa, that you can’t change the will and attitude of the thousands upon thousands of folks who don’t show up in the elections for these local policy-makers, but in lieu of that ability, I offer up a series of actionable items you could (within your purview as Santa) take up to help this:

1. Stop with this madness of holding elections in March. Nobody votes in March. Always tie the school board elections to the larger elections as a whole, be it state or federal office.
2. A series of publically funded “Get out and vote” Public Service Announcements prior to school board elections. You could easily gather a coalition of folks who want to encourage voting.

I know, I know, Santa, this is a tough one. But I know you can do it. 

Comments (0)

By Kyle, November 28, 2011 9:28 pm

The Ronettes – Sleigh Ride (From “A Christmas Gift For You From Phil Spector)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I fully realize that I instantly lose any moral high ground when my next Christmas song comes from a convicted murderer. However, despite killing The Beatles album, Let It Be, the wall of sound does, in fact, do ironic justice to the sounds of Christmas.

And that seems like a great way to begin my Education Wish List for 2011. So Santa, here goes:

First on my list (or last, depending on your theory of ordinal numbers) is my wish for LAUSD to end social promotion.

Santa, this wish has been on my list (and thus unfulfilled) for nearly 3 years. In case you’ve forgotten, students are socially promoted when those students, who have shown nearly no evidence of academic mastery of grade level-material are promoted to the next grade level anyway. This current practice is awful for a number of reasons. First, it may disincentivize (come on spell-check…”disincentivize” IS a word) students to perform well academically. Second, it hamstrings higher level classrooms where grade level material is increasingly difficult to teach due to the large numbers of students who have note mastered the prerequisites. Yes, they’re called “pre”-requisites for a reason. And third, and most importantly, the current system of social promotion flies in the face of the high expectations that teachers, schools, and families are trying to promote. It’s hard to say, “I expect you to work hard so you can do well in 8th grade”, but then "if you don’t, you can go there anyway.

Now Santa, you may be hesitant to end social promotion like I’d like you to. I know you may have read research that suggests that retaining students does little to improve their outcomes, or worry that district-wide ending of social promotion might not even be feasible.

I understand completely, Santa, and to help you out a little bit, I’ll suggest the following steps to ensure that this Christmas wish list can be actually fulfilled.

Step 1: Do not actually end social promotion district wide next year. Rather, end social promotion for all kindergarten. Then the following year, end social promotion for kindergarten and first grade. Then, the following year, end social promotion for K-2, and so on, and so on. Manageable? Absolutely.

Step 2: As research suggests, do not merely retain failing kindergarteners next year. Rather, identify them early, and in the process of retention, provide them with additional learning options and opportunities (be it intervention courses, parent workshops, or additional supports even in elementary school).

Santa, these two steps are totally manageable, and I know they can be done. So please grant my first Christmas wish. I’ve been good.

Comments (0)

By Kyle, November 20, 2011 4:04 pm

Jon Brion – Play the Game

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Once again, Howard Blume shows us in this YouTube video summary that yes, the media can, in fact, actually report education issues in a civilized and rational manner. His reasonableness applies not only to issues that are generally agreed upon by all (for example, more funding would definitely be a good thing), but also more contentious issues (such as charter schools – fast forward to about 1:20 to see).

Unfortunately, this method of reporting seems to be in the minority, as his colleagues have at times given up on taking nuanced positions in favor of headline-grabbing declarations, such as today’s “Teachers who just don’t care”. While I can empathize with the op-ed author’s frustration, expressing it in such virulent language does absolutely nothing to either inform or progress the conversation in a way than anyone desires.

And after being unsatisfied with the damage done after publishing their own value-added data rankings of LAUSD elementary teachers (see “Ratings, again” about halfway down the page), it looks as if some of the editors at the Times may now be trying to do the same using the district’s own value-added metric, which is designed to be confidential between teachers and principals (click to download our superintendent’s response).

Nice.

While this move may sell some more newspapers (though I doubt why, given the newspaper industry’s brilliantly astigmatic decision to give all their content away for free online), it will do nothing to further the discussion in a meaningful way, but rather will only undercut and further polarize what it is that the district (perhaps galvanized by the Times’ first exposé into teacher rankings) is actually hoping to do.

Apparently, some folks need to have their cake, eat it too, and then vomit it all over the room.

Comments (0)

By Kyle, November 17, 2011 9:58 pm

The Cars – Just What I Needed

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

There’s much to be frustrated in education policy these days, from media outlets muddying the waters of actual reform (the LA Times just asked for all of LAUSD’s teachers’ AGT data) , to simplistic data being touted in overreaching ways (48% of voters think charters provide “better” education…unfortunately, we’re not exactly sure what the term “better” means).

Thank goodness for satire.

A blog I’ve recently been following, notyetlausd.blogspot.com, has provided some much needed levity to the situation, and in so doing, actually speaks some truth that at times, is a bit uncomfortable. The latest? Viewing the Wasserman’s $4 million grant to LAUSD (directly to teacher projects) as….get this, reparations for Public School Choice.

Amazing.

And yes, after a long night of parent conferences were a wonderful chance to meet and interact with my students and their families (but nonetheless went 30 minutes over time because of my amazing horrible fluency in Spanish), this is just what I needed.

Comments (1)

By Kyle, November 7, 2011 7:39 pm

Yes – It Can Happen

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I live in a town driven by the media.

Today, the LA Times published an article linking cheating teachers in California to the increased pressure on standardized testing taking place. I’ll leave it to you to read the article for yourself (or this more interesting one), but basically it succeeds as a solid piece of documentation in that the pressure to increase standardized test scores is a reality faced by the culture of education in the nation, and particularly in LAUSD.

I’ve lived in this town long enough to make a prediction, nay, even a bet as to what will happen in the coming months in the wake of this story. I’ve come to believe that our school district policy is for better or for worse driven by the LA Times, and so I’ll summon all my psychic powers (which have thus far failed me in my office football pool) to predict the following:

• By February 1, 2012, LAUSD will issue a memo, policy, or resolution that specifically addresses acceptable and unacceptable test proctoring strategies for teachers, and lays out consequences for teachers found to be in violation.

I’m prepared to stand by this prediction by transforming it into a friendly wager: Loser buys the winner a beverage of choice next time we hang out.

Are there (up to) 5 takers? Bring it on.

Comments (0)

By Kyle, October 29, 2011 3:09 pm

The Rolling Stones – 2000 Man

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Apologies in advance: this post is a bit wonky.

Last Sunday evening, I got a frantic text from a colleague. “We’re off the PSC list!” it said. An email from my principal a few hours later confirmed the good news. LAUSD had finally acknowledged what we at Cochran Middle School had known for nearly 6 months – namely, that the notion that Cochran Middle School is a low performing school, is blatantly false.

An email from our Superintendent further confirmed this, and shows just how dramatically the district has shifted their view of data. Rather than get into the nitty-gritty of which metrics have bit the dust (so long API, AYP, and PI), it’s a bit more interesting to see what the district has apparently gotten right (and might still be leaving out in this shift).

What LAUSD got right:

While most folks acknowledge that “achievement” and “growth” are two terms that refer to separate measures, they’re too often left ambiguous with respect to the extent to which they refer to schools or to students. LAUSD has correctly begun to note that “student achievement” is different than “school achievement”’/”school performance”. And “student growth” is different than “school growth”. The inclusion of a value-added metric (AGT), even if statistically imperfect, is a step in the right direction.

What I still worry about:

Although AGT is still new, and potentially far from statistically perfect, its mere existence means that we’re actually talking about the right things. Namely, LAUSD is acknowledging that there are non-school factors that influence student achievement, something that unions have been proclaiming for years. One of my worries is that we’re simply accepting AGT as the “right” value-added metric. I’m convinced there are plenty of other variables in the equation that ought to be controlled for that simply are not at this point.

My second worry with this set of new school metrics is that it will create further perverse incentives to “game the system”, meaning, to attempt to improve one’s numbers by “juking the stats” rather than actually by improving instruction. Last week’s This American Life actually provided a fascinating story on what happens (in a police department) when stats become the dominant theme of conversation. Or, simply watch Season 3 of The Wire. Schools are already finding ways to game this new system.

The solution?

• LAUSD needs to invest further research and development into a better value-added metric.
• Not only does the criteria for school labeling need to be made public, but the process of generating said criteria needs to be both transparent and include justification. (Thankfully, I have a brilliant colleague working on exactly this as we speak).
• LAUSD needs to both analyze and address potentially perverse incentive structures created by any system of school labeling.

It’s interesting…after a crazy (and somewhat emotional) week, both my optimism and cynicism are simultaneously renewed.

Comments (0)

By Kyle, October 17, 2011 7:51 pm

Tommy Roe – Dizzy

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

As the ocean layer began its morning burn off this past Friday, a group of teachers, including myself, waiting in our school library for the President of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten to arrive along with UTLA President Warren Fletcher.

The agenda? Public School Choice, and the ways that it has both misidentified schools that need interventions (Cochran, while by no means perfect, does not need such drastic interventions), and failed to account for the way in which going through the process puts additional stress on staff, distracting our focus from where it should be, our children.

The content of the meeting itself was hardly substantive, but two specific outcomes began to shed a bit of light on the situation. First, the AFT President contacted our Superintendent on behalf of us, requesting a meeting, so we’ll see what happens there. Second, the LA Times education reporter happened to be in the room, and as a result, a story was published.

The article, while short, got straight to the point, and did a good job of assessing the current situation. A short time later, our local LA education blogger picked up the story and began a discussion online of what the potential response could be. A colleague weighed in brilliantly as this discussion progressed.

Where do we stand? Well, we don’t really know yet. However, in the words of Spike Lee, we are fairly confident that LAUSD will

Comments (0)

By Kyle, October 2, 2011 11:07 am

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

On Friday, Howard Blume wrote:

Deasy warns L.A. school board to stay neutral on bidding over campuses

The least you should know: Deasy writes a memo to board members saying that they should remain neutral (refrain from public statements) regarding groups that will be submitting plans to operate Public School Choice 3.0 schools.

The plot thickens: Accusations of LAUSD board favoritism go both ways, and board members are in perceived alliances with either the union or charters organizations or their allies.

Who looks good here: Supt. Deasy. Sending a memo requiring impartiality presumes that the sender is also impartial.

Who looks bad here: The LA School Board (especially Bennett Kayser). Whether or nor it’s actually true, this article implicates LA board members are puppets of political allegiances rather than educational leaders. Though Kayser is singled-out by name, a brief reading does not let several other board members off the hook either.

An unnamed, TFA alum, still-teaching-at-original-placement-school, LAUSD math teacher’s rant: This is incredibly frustrating. It’s now more apparent than ever that even if Public School Choice was initiated in a genuine effort (which I’m not sure about), it has since become a political game in which there are very much sides, and members of each side will do whatever it takes to advance their cause. “Whatever it takes” seems to include everything from lobbying board members, to boosting test scores by adjusting tested student populations, to using PSC as leverage for other unrelated educational reforms. The reality is that the Public School Choice process is absolutely mired in politics at this point.

Solutions: LAUSD needs to recognize that their PSC Focus School selection criteria is currently flawed in that is fails to measure what  it hopes to, namely the impact that schools make on the students they serve. A new metric, Academic Growth Over Time (AGT), while currently in its early stages (and thus imperfect) actually seeks to measure this. Unfortunately for the district, half of the schools on PSC 3.0 have average or above average AGT scores, which calls into question why they’d be on the chopping block. LAUSD is in the awkward position of wanting to get buy-in for AGT, yet not using it themselves to inform the PSC process. The PSC process should thus be paused until better data metrics can be used to identify schools and better data metrics can be used to determine whether PSC has in fact, resulted in better student outcomes (HINT: subtracting API or percent proficient between two consecutive years is NOT an accurate data metric of growth).