The high cost of low salaries.

Now that my daughter (RHS Class of 07) has begun working on her Master’s and started student teaching at an elementary school in New Hampshire, I’m getting a fascinating look at the process of becoming a teacher. The view from the very first days of one’s career is so interesting – especially when that career is constantly in the news and the topic of blog posts, speeches, political posturing, national debate and local ridicule. More than a few young or aspiring teachers are asking themselves, “What am I doing? Is this really the smartest thing for me to do with my life?” For most young adults who enter the teaching profession right out of college, teaching is a calling. They’ve always wanted to be a teacher, or they’ve always know they wanted to work with children. Teaching is certainly not the career one lands on when scanning the list of Top 10 Starting Salaries or Top 10 Growth Careers, where it seems the primary focus is on how fast can you get out and how much money can you leave with. Teaching is no way to get rich – there are much higher starting salaries and much more lucrative fields. This fact, I believe, is directly related to the current worries about the quality of our schools.

I read a great piece in the NY Times about teacher compensation and the high cost of turnover -- as 46% of teachers quit before their fifth year. (The High Cost of Low Salaries, 4/30/11) According to the piece:

WHEN we don’t get the results we want in our military endeavors, we don’t blame the soldiers. We don’t say, “It’s these lazy soldiers and their bloated benefits plans! That’s why we haven’t done better in Afghanistan!” No, if the results aren’t there, we blame the planners. We blame the generals, the secretary of defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No one contemplates blaming the men and women fighting every day in the trenches for little pay and scant recognition.

And yet in education we do just that. When we don’t like the way our students score on international standardized tests, we blame the teachers. When we don’t like the way particular schools perform, we blame the teachers and restrict their resources.

Compare this with our approach to our military: when results on the ground are not what we hoped, we think of ways to better support soldiers. We try to give them better tools, better weapons, better protection, better training. And when recruiting is down, we offer incentives.

We have a rare chance now, with many teachers near retirement, to prove we’re serious about education. The first step is to make the teaching profession more attractive to college graduates.

I find it difficult to argue with this premise. What do you say?

The article discusses a McKinsey study that looked at countries with successful education systems – you know, the countries frequently cited as shining examples of school systems that are “better” than ours, namely Singapore, Finland and South Korea. The study found:

Turns out these countries have an entirely different approach to the profession. First, the governments in these countries recruit top graduates to the profession. (We don’t.) In Finland and Singapore they pay for training. (We don’t.) In terms of purchasing power, South Korea pays teachers on average 250 percent of what we do.

The authors also remark that “turnover in these countries is startlingly low: In South Korea, it’s 1 percent per year. In Finland, it’s 2 percent. In Singapore, 3 percent.”

Is this a coincidence? I don’t think so. Great teachers are going to be the key to improving our education system, and great teachers – who possess the best and brightest minds and who can afford to teach and contribute for the long haul – will cost money.

The NY Times column concludes:

For those who say, “How do we pay for this?” — well, how are we paying for three concurrent wars? How did we pay for the interstate highway system? Or the bailout of the savings and loans in 1989 and that of the investment banks in 2008? How did we pay for the equally ambitious project of sending Americans to the moon? We had the vision and we had the will and we found a way.

To which I add, it’s time to rustle up our collective will, leave the politics out, and make it happen. This is not to say it must happen by being fully funded by local property taxes. It's a federal issue. Right? Isn't our nation's overall approach to education a national issue? Hello? Is this thing on?

And to the young teachers just starting their careers now, perhaps in your first classrooms this week: Hang in there. Don’t be discouraged. Think for yourself and not your union’s political agenda. Be part of the conversation. And thank you.

When incentives are incentives to cheat.

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the NYC principal who was removed from her job for changing students’ grades and giving course credit to failing students was retained by the NYC public schools as an “Achievement Coach?” (See New York Times article.) That seems like a stretch. Apparently she will still be paid a principal’s salary “but will no longer be eligible for a $25,000 performance bonus like the one she earned in 2009.” Well, that’s a relief.

I’m not even going to bother being outraged (or even surprised) that this principal wasn’t fired, that the NY schools chancellor seemed to think this wasn’t a very big deal. Let the NYC parents get upset about that. I’m more concerned about the lesson to be learned by those who push financial incentives for higher test scores. This type of thing – tweaking scores or massaging grades or “misapplying grading policies” or, let’s be real, cheating – is going to become tempting as the stakes get higher and higher. Perhaps you’ve heard about the cheating scandal recently coming to light in some Pennsylvania public schools? Or what about Atlanta? Desperate people, in desperate times, will do desperate things to keep their jobs.

Of course, another irony is the fact that incentives like bonus pay have been shown to have ZERO effect on student performance. (Click here and here.) But lawmakers don’t want to hear that. The public doesn’t want to hear it. It’s easier for them if the answer is simply to reward educators for higher test scores.

Seems pretty clear to me that this is not going to end well…

Update: There's a new story today on the NY Times website, reporting that allegations of cheating and grade tampering in the NYC public schools have tripled since 2002. Yep, expect to see more and more stories like this...

Wait, I'm confused, I thought NJ wanted good teachers?

For a state that ranks pretty high in student achievement, and in quality of schools overall, New Jersey sure seems to be going out of its way to discourage quality teachers from coming to (or staying in) our schools. I'm not talking about Governor Christie's rhetoric, the so-called "demonizing" of teachers. And I'm not talking about those brave school boards that are right this very minute struggling to change the financial paradigm in contract negotiations (aka "taking away" or modifying some of the benefits teachers have enjoyed for generations). Those are other topics for another day.

No, I'm talking about two recent news items that got relatively little publicity.

First, there was the story that at least one NJ school district, in Medford, is considering forcing student teachers to pay for the opportunity to do their student-teaching internships in Medford schools. I couldn't believe this. Just the other day I was musing on the great deal districts (and universities) get thanks to student teachers. Think about it: The student pays tuition to the college, while spending no (or very little) time using classrooms, professors or other college resources. The District gets a young, energetic teacher, who can work with struggling students, give enrichment to advanced students, sub for sick teachers, perform playground and lunch duty...all for free! The idea that a student teacher would be required to pay $1,200-$1,500, on top of their tuition, will surely discourage them from doing their internship in such a district.

The second story was about the bill to require in-state residency for New Jersey public employees, including teachers. According to bill S-1730, all state, county and municipal employees, as well as anyone working for political subdivisions of the state, employees of public authorities, boards, agencies and commissions and, finally, employees of schools, colleges and universities, would also be required to have their principal residence in New Jersey, making it their legal residence for the purposes of voting and paying taxes. Public employees now working in New Jersey would have 2 1/2 years from the date the law is enacted to establish their residency in the state.

For sure this will be devastating for Districts located very close to state lines. For Ridgewood, I don't know the exact number, but I do know we have some teachers who live in Rockland County, Manhattan and Connecticut.

This is silly. Don't we want the best teachers, wherever they live?

Honestly, you'd think excellent teachers are just growing on trees. Yes, there are lots of great teachers, but treating them like a commodity is no way to appreciate value.

On the agenda for Monday’s BOE meeting.

The Board of Education meets Monday night at 7:30, on the 3rd floor of the Ed Center. A few highlights from the agenda (full agenda available here):

The Board will hear an update on Special Ed services and staffing, with an explanation of needs for the 11-12 school year.

The 2010-11 Teacher Recognition nominees will be approved by the Board, in advanced of the annual Teacher Recognition award reception to be held on May 10. The teachers being honored are:
Special Programs…Patricia McVeigh
Hawes…Shirley Kolkebeck
Orchard…Christine Thielke
Ridge…Tracee Fazio
Somerville…Meredith McLaughlin
Travell…Carol Goulian
Willard…Dawn-Lyn Dolfi
Benjamin Franklin…David Tashian
George Washington…Evelyn McKinnon
RHS…Patricia Johnson
Congratulations!

The Board will gratefully accept donations, including from the Ridge HAS, the Ridgewood Ice Hockey Foundation, the RHS HSA and others.

Dr. Fishbein will present a few change orders for work at RHS, Ridge and GW. The referendum projects continue to be well under budget, as work begins on the two remaining large projects at Willard and GW.

We’ll also have regular business such as retirements, movements of staff, approval of some summer stipends, public comment, etc.

As always, the meeting will be televised on Cablevision Channel 77, webcast live on the District website, and archived for later viewing.

Some thoughts on merit pay for teachers, tied to test scores.

Teacher quality is vital, but I’m concerned about increases in high-stakes standardized testing (and imperfect tests) to evaluate teachers, influence compensation, etc. Testing and data mining is going to cost a lot of money. Who will pay? What will be the effect on students?

How will the state develop standardized tests for Art? History? Theater? Health? You know there are no state tests for those right now. How long is that going to take? How much more learning will students lose in order to participate in testing? These are just a few of my concerns.

Then I read Dana Goldstein's story in the Daily Beast about high-stakes testing and something called "Campbell’s Law" — the social-science maxim that holds that the reliability of a decision-making tool is inversely proportional to the importance of the decision being made. That is, the more a test score is worth, the more it’s worth cheating on the test. (The story was about allegations of high erasure rates -- cheating -- on supposedly-improved standardized tests in Washington, D.C.)

So that gives me even more worry about placing all this emphasis on state-developed tests.

Did I mention how pretty much every 9th grader in New Jersey failed the state's first Biology test? So now they're back at the drawing board trying to come up with a better test.

And, finally, Diane Ravitch tweeted today, "Imagine putting fate of students and teachers in hands of the testing agencies" like those described in the book, Making the Grades: My Misadventures in the Standardized Testing Industry by Todd Farley, an eye-opening (and frightening) book that I read last year. Another good point, Diane!

What does this mean for Ridgewood? The political pressure in Trenton is forcing a rush to policies for evaluating teacher quality, based on extremely flawed state tests. Eventually, the requirements will hit Ridgewood, we'll be forced to comply (rather than rely on our own education leaders to evaluate our teachers), it will cost a lot of money, it will suck even more time away from our administrators and teachers...like I said, I'm worried.

Governor Christie and Education Commissioner Cerf unveil NJ tenure reform proposal.

I don't have time right now to write a full reporting of the Governor's proposals announced today, but I wanted you to know about them ASAP. Thus, the following is reprinted from the blog New Jersey Left Behind. I'll share my own thoughts shortly:

This afternoon Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf gave a briefing on the Christie Administration’s five-part tenure reform proposal. Legislative language will be released in two weeks. Here’s the skinny; I’ll fill in the details tomorrow.

1) Teacher Evaluations: currently teacher evaluations are subject to collective bargaining in local districts. According to the proposal, the Department of Education will craft a state-wide evaluation form that bases 50% of a teacher’s rating on student growth (measured by standardized tests) and 50% on best practices. This new instrument will not be subject to negotiations between local unions and school districts. Other tenured employees – principals, child study team members, custodians, secretaries – will be unaffected by this legislation.

2) Tenure: teachers will be judged to be highly effective, effective, partially effective, or ineffective. These measurements will be wholly based on student learning. A teacher will be awarded tenure after three consecutive years of effective teaching. If a previously-tenured teacher amasses two consecutive years of ineffective ratings, he or she will revert to non-tenure status.

3) Mutual Consent: currently teachers can be placed in a school regardless of whether the building principal considers that teacher to be effective. The proposed legislation eliminates that practice. If a school within a district closes or is replaced, both the teacher and principals must mutually agree on a teacher’s placement within that school. If either party rejects the placement, then the teacher retains employment rights within the district for a full year and the district must assist the teacher in placement. If, however, the teacher is still not placed within a year then he or she will go on unpaid leave.

4) “Last In, First Out” (LIFO): under current law, when a district lays off teachers due to shrinking enrollment or funds then seniority dictates the order of job loss and it is illegal to consider teacher effectiveness. This proposal mandates that districts take into account teacher effectiveness when deciding on lay-offs.

5) Compensation: all districts base teacher compensation on years served and degrees earned. This new proposal dictates that the primary factor in salary is student growth. Teachers would also receive higher salaries by teaching in high-needs districts, teaching in hard-to-staff disciplines (math, science, special education), and by graduating from a teaching college with proven methods that advance student learning.

I know I said I'd share my opinions soon, and I'd like to give a more thoughtful response, but off the bat I can report that while I'm all for demanding quality from our teachers, I'm troubled by the emphasis on standardized tests and "student growth" as such a primary way to measure teacher effectiveness. More on the pitfalls of that to come...

Parents and teachers as partners.

As we're deep into the "Back to School night" season, here's a good article on how parents can partner with teachers for student success. Click here.

It's from a pretty good website I don't remember seeing before -- www.schoolfamily.com. There was quite a lot of good info, message boards, lots of tips from parents and teachers. Seems like a lively site. Parents, check it out.

Alfie Kohn's take on the failure of "value-added" teacher evaluations.

today's Huffington Post contained an essay from education expert Alfie Kohn, offering some good points on the dialog about measuring value-added data for teachers, "What Passes for School Reform: 'Value-Added' Teacher Evaluation and Other Absurdities." If you're interested in this nationwide discussion of how to improve teaching and learning by ensuring effective teachers, I recommend you read it.

The most interesting section (in my opinion) is this (reprinted):

What if we asked other questions instead? We could do so about any of the policies I've mentioned, but for now let's consider the idea of judging teachers with a "value-added" method.

Question 1: Does this model provide valid and reliable information about teachers (and schools)? Most experts in the field of educational assessment say, Good heavens, no. This year's sterling teacher may well look like crud next year, and vice versa. Too many variables affect a cohort's test scores; statistically speaking, we just can't credit or blame any individual teacher.

Unfortunately, many of the experts who point this out tend to stop there, even though the problem runs far deeper than technical psychometric flaws with the technique. For example. . .

Question 2: Does learning really lend itself to any kind of "value-added" approach? It does only if it's conceived as an assembly line process in which children are filled up with facts and skills at each station along a conveyor belt, and we need only insert a dipstick before and after they arrive at a given station (say, fourth grade), measure the pre/post difference, and judge the worker at that station accordingly. The very idea of "value-added measures," not just a specific formula for calculating them, implicitly accepts this absurd model.

Question 3: Do standardized tests assess what matters most about teaching and learning? If not, then no value-added approach based on those tests makes any sense. As I've argued elsewhere -- and of course I'm hardly alone in doing so -- test results primarily tell us two things: the socioeconomic status of the students being tested and the amount of time devoted to preparing students for a particular test.

Regarding individual students, at least three studies have found a statistically significant positive relationship between high scores on standardized tests and a relatively shallow approach to learning. Regarding individual teachers, let's just say that some of the best the field has to offer do not necessarily raise their kids' test scores (because they're too busy helping the kids to become enthusiastic and proficient thinkers, which is not what the tests measure), while some teachers who are very successful at raising test scores are not much good at anything else. Finally, regarding whole schools, if test scores rise enough, and for long enough, to suggest a trend rather than a fluke, the rational response from a local parent would be, "Uh-oh. What was sacrificed from our children's education in order to make that happen?"

It won't do to fall back on the tired slogan that test scores may not be perfect, but they're good enough. The more you examine the construction of these exams, the more likely you are to conclude that they do not add any useful information to what can be learned from other, more authentic forms of assessment. In fact, they actively detract from our understanding about learning (and teaching) because their results are so misleading.

Notice, by the way, that everyone who declares that we ought to reward good teachers and boot the bad ones is assuming that all of us agree on what "good" and "bad" mean. But do we? I'd argue that a dipstick, test-based model is endorsed by newspapers, by public officials, and by billionaires who have bought their seat at the policy-making table (seat, hell; they own the table itself) precisely because we often don't agree.

More good points to ponder...

Students' test scores only show part of a teacher's "effectiveness."

Yesterday I wrote about the LA Times' recent project to score and rank (and publicize) teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Teachers are able to review their scores online, and they have the opportunity to respond in writing to their scores.

This response from a 5th grade teacher to his score is indicative of the problems with value-added data scoring. How can this teacher be reduced to "less effective" or "average?" Clearly he is neither of those things.

I shake my head, hating to think that someone (parents, administrators) skimming down a list of scores, could write-off this teacher as not effective.

Count on this: no easy solutions in the effort to evaluate teachers.

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

This quote is usually attributed to Albert Einstein (although I couldn’t find any proof of his writing or saying it). It’s an interesting and valid thought. And it’s often mentioned in the nationwide conversation about teacher performance and test scores.

Last Wednesday’s New York Times contained the story, “When Does Holding Teachers Accountable Go Too Far?” I found it to be a good review of some of the challenges faced by educators who, with budget-driven urgency, are trying anew to determine the best way to evaluate teachers (and, it follows, to better connect performance with compensation). The story’s main focus was the concept of measuring “value-added data” for teachers. This is a statistical technique where student test scores are analyzed, measuring improvement from when a teacher started teaching the student to when he/she completed the year. According to the theory, the change in test scores is a measure of the “value” added by the teacher: more increase = more value added and, it follows, better teaching.

The Los Angeles Times recently analyzed seven years of elementary school test scores and created a ranking of 6,000 teachers. “The newspaper named a few teachers — both stars and laggards — and announced that it would release the approximate rankings for all teachers, along with their names.”

The Los Angeles Times articles got teachers riled up, the union called for a boycott of the paper, but...the union also said, more calmly, that they’re willing to discuss making such scores at least a part of teachers’ evaluations. That’s encouraging.

The critics of value-added data point to some real limitations. According to the NY Times, “scores can bounce around from year to year for any one teacher...so a single year of scores — which some states may use for evaluation — can be misleading. In addition, students are not randomly assigned to teachers; indeed, principals may deliberately assign slow learners to certain teachers, unfairly lowering their scores. As for the tests themselves, most do not even try to measure the social skills that are crucial to early learning.” And, thinking about Ridgewood, what about teachers who are already very successful or whose students begin at fairly high-achieving levels? If your students already score very high, and there’s not much higher for them to go, is it fair to judge that teacher as not “adding value?” This is exactly what happened to Ridgewood in last year’s state QSAC evaluation – the District received a lower score in student achievement because our test scores didn’t improve enough. But it was physically impossible for our scores to improve that much – they would have had to have been higher than 100% perfect.

Some educators feel that value-added data can probably help identify the best and the worst teachers, but probably won’t help much in truly evaluating teachers in the middle. Other educators have suggested using the value-added data on the school level, without tying the scores to individual teachers' names. I agree with the NY Times’ writer’s feeling that an important first step would be for us all to agree that no system will ever be perfect. No system can do it all. And, personally, I will never feel good about placing too much emphasis on standardized tests, especially when the tests we have are so imperfect.

The New Jersey Department of Education recently announced a special committee that will be working on teacher evaluation. The big deal, according to them, is that the committee contains teachers, administrators, school board members, legislators, "experts," etc. An apparently inclusive group that will calmly and rationally research and develop some solutions. When I heard they wanted school board members, I immediately tried to volunteer. Turns out, their idea of school board representation was that a staffer from the New Jersey School Board Association will participate. Darn.

Clearly, parents and communities want their schools to be accountable. I believe teachers want to be accountable. It’s in our human nature to rank things, to create order, to understand the value (relative or intrinsic) in everything we do. Test scores are such a seemingly easy solution – what could be more cut and dried than numbers? “The scores don’t lie,” sounds so simple. But aren’t there more things that “count?” Can’t we find a way to wrap our human brains around the concept of things that can’t be counted?

Something to think about as we begin the new school year – a school year in which a new contract will be negotiated with our Ridgewood teachers.

Have a great first day of school tomorrow!

All District staff kick-off the new school year.

I attended the all-staff Convocation last Thursday at BF Middle School. (BOE members Charlie Reilly, Sheila Brogan and Bob Hutton also attended.) The morning began with coffee and such in the cafeteria, and it was nice to see all the teachers and other staff greeting each other after a summer apart. Then everybody headed to the auditorium. The theme of the day was "Moving Forward." BOE Vice President Bob Hutton gave a nice speech, wherein he noted that his youngest son and his son's RHS-graduate friends all completed college in four years and were gainfully employed or pursuing law school, med school, etc. I was happy to hear no mention of upcoming budget troubles, contract negotiations, etc., which I think would be out of place on this day of anticipation and enthusiasm. (Bob spoke because BOE president Michele Lenhard was away helping her son move in to college for his sophomore year.) Bob also led the room in a rousing rendition of America the Beautiful. Ridgewood Education Association President Maria Cannon spoke, too. Normally her convocation speeches are very warm and a little emotional and teacher-y, with enthusiasm for the coming year. This time, though, she focused almost entirely on Governor Christie and his "demonizing" of teachers. Hmmm. Not exactly "moving forward," but... Finally, Superintendent Dr. Fishbein gave a nice speech where he talked about his oldest son leaving for college last weekend...more than a few teachers came up later to tell him he made them cry.

My favorite part of Convocation is the student presentations. We had musical performances (violin and percussion), a dance performance and the Second Annual Ridgewood Convocation Feud, sort of like Family Feud, where the topics are Ridgewood school trivia, presented by some New Players kids.

Convocation also included the presentation of the 2010 Lloyd W. Ashby Award, which has been awarded every year since 1967. This year's recipient is Jane Blakely, who recently retired as Supervisor of Social Studies.

No matter what rumors your kids try to tell you (there is no ceiling collapse), every Ridgewood school will start this Tuesday, September 7.

On the agenda for Monday’s meeting of the BOE.

Tomorrow night is our first BOE meeting since mid-July. There are several business items on the agenda, as well as our annual “Board Retreat” where we discuss our self-evaluation of the Board and discuss goals for the 2010-11 school year.

Please note: unlike what is stated in the agenda, we will begin at 6:00 with Board business FIRST, and then move on to the Board Retreat items after 7:30 p.m. (Our representative from the New Jersey School Boards Association will be facilitating the Retreat section, and he cannot be here until 7:30.)

Agenda highlights (click here for full agenda on RPS website):

Update on referendum projects, including status and estimated completion dates for the various projects currently underway.

Approval of new curriculum, which was worked on over the summer. Some of the new curriculum is for Math in grades K-2. (Remember, we previously started with grades 3-5 with EnVision Math. Now it’s time to phase in Grades 3-5.) There is also new curriculum for several new courses added at the high school. Whenever new textbooks are purchased, there is a need to review and make sure the curriculum guide matches up. You can see the list of new curriculum guides at the end of the agenda on the website.

Approval of several appointments of new staff, including our new Supervisor of Wellness/Athletic Director, several new teachers, many changes in staff assignment, co-curricular stipends, new substitutes, etc.

Acceptance of donations for the athletic field lighting.

Approval of change orders for various referendum projects. The agenda includes descriptions of each change, along with the status of the bid and what the change order means to the project’s total budget. All of the change orders are for unforeseen construction issues, such as discovering the wrong (not per current code) type of wiring inside the Ridge ceiling, discovering the water main under Stevens Field, discovering rotted wood inside Willard’s roof, etc. This is why there were contingency funds included in every project’s budget – because we knew that when we opened up some of these buildings, we would undoubtedly find things we didn’t expect, but that need to be fixed.

Discussion of the revised policy for School & Facility Naming Rights. The Board believes there is a potential for raising some funds with naming rights for facilities such as fields, etc. We have been approached by some interested parties. This new policy spells out how it would work. We’ll talk about it tomorrow night.

As always, you are invited to attend our Public Meeting, which begins tomorrow at 6:00 PM at the Ed Center, 3rd floor. It will also be broadcast on Channel 77 and webcast on our website (click here). You can also watch the archived webcast later.

Any questions, comment here or email me lauriegood@mac.com

The week ahead: the natives are getting restless.

Some random thoughts for a Sunday night:

Things are starting to pick up a little speed this week. Tomorrow the District's new teachers will begin their three-day orientation process at the Ed Center. Board members will meet them over coffee and such before their program begins. I always think how exciting it must be to begin teaching in Ridgewood. The mood is always so upbeat and positive. Great way to start my week! (I can't remember how many new teachers will be starting tomorrow...I'll report back with that info later.)

Work on the athletic fields will get back underway tomorrow and I'll be interested to see how the under-construction fields look after today's ridiculous amount of rain. I drove by late tonight and Stevens appeared to be free of standing water. (It was dark, so visibility wasn't great.) The Stadium field was a big lake earlier in the evening, and still had quite a bit of water all around the perimeter by 11 p.m. Of course, we've known all along that there will continue to be flooding at the fields. Flooding is inevitable. What's important -- and what's supposed to be improved -- is the drainage after the floods. So...tomorrow will be interesting.

Also this week, I'll be accompanying my daughter back to New Hampshire to help her move in for her senior year at UNH. Pretty speechless on that one -- cannot believe she is a senior. And she submitted her application for Graduate School today...if she gets accepted into the program, she'll be able to get her Master's in 2012 and begin teaching. She still wants to be a teacher, but the future looks a little scary to students currently in teacher education programs. I just tell her to keep her head down and work hard on becoming the best teacher she can be...the economics and politics and such will work themselves out (I hope) while she's studying. I've also told her to keep an open mind...she may want to start her teaching career somewhere other than New Jersey.

Interesting story in the New York Times today about "redshirting" kindergartners. Redshirting is the practice of starting kids later so that they will be among the older children in their class, throughout their entire K-12 education. I've heard of some super sports-minded parents doing this now and then (honestly, how do you know your son will want to play football 10 years from now?), but apparently now it is becoming much more common with girls and boys. Read the full article here.

Have a great week!

Saying “goodbye” to long-time staff.

Last week I attended the Retirement Celebration for 25 Ridgewood Public Schools staff who are retiring at the end of this school year. It was bittersweet. There are always retirements, but I think the number this year was slightly larger than in recent years, thanks to all the uncertainty from Trenton surrounding pensions, and the budget cuts and changes coming to our District.

Of course, by its very nature, an event like this is going to focus on long-time employees, who have contributed greatly for many many years, and so there is a feeling of loss. And awe. For example, how can I not be awed by Fred Barbi, who began his career teaching at Travell in 1969? He taught for 41 years total at Travell and then taught social studies (including to my son) at BF…think of the hundreds of children he influenced! We are losing several area supervisors – Garland Allen (District Director of Wellness), Jane Blakely (RHS Supervisor of Social Studies & English), Joan Lipkowitz (District Supervisor of World Languages), Fred Nartowitz (RHS Supervisor of Science) and Ed Schmiedecke (District Supervisor of Fine & Applied Arts) will surely be missed! Sarah “Sally” Blair attended Willard, Ridge, GW and RHS as a student, and then spent her career in special education here! Joyce Riccio-Sauer spent 24 years in Ridgewood schools, as an RHS art teacher, then a technology coordinator and Intel Master Teacher, and then went back to teaching art at Willard. These are just a few examples of the excellent staff we will miss, and yet we wish the best to them.

I’m told that long ago (or a few years ago, not that long), the District would hold an actual retirement “dinner,” which was lovely and much more elaborate than finger food and punch in the Ed Center. State laws now prevent us from spending money on that, but I hope those who were honored last week know – as many of our administrators eloquently explained – how important they were to the success of our District, and how much we will miss their presence, their talents and their contribution.

Wishing the best to our retirees. Last day of school tomorrow...

Law & Order: Special Teachers Unit.

What a coincidence. Tonight I’m in a hotel room prior to a meeting with a client tomorrow, so I sat down to do another read through of the District’s contract with the Ridgewood Education Association (REA = teachers). Just a little light reading. I also had to watch the series finale of Law & Order – the last episode ever of one of my favorite shows. I love the “ripped from the headlines” stories. As I’m watching the episode develop, I realize just which headlines this episode was ripped from. The bad guys in tonight’s Law & Order? The teachers’ union! Wow, they really went for it, too. In a nutshell, the plot involved an impending school bombing (which the detectives discovered by reading a blog, btw), and they figure out it’s a teacher making the threats. But the teacher’s union reps will not help the police find the identity of the bomber. They plead with various union leaders, lawyers and teachers, to no avail. The union head actually uses lines like, “Sorry, I’ve got to enforce the terms of the association’s agreement.” And then DA Jack McCoy yells at the union lawyer “We’re trying to save lives here…get out of my way!” Wow. Symbolism much? In the end, one brave teacher gave up the bad guy’s name, the frustrated teacher/bomber (who was upset about being wrongfully accused of assaulting a belligerent student) was captured, the police saved the day, and all ended well. It was a great episode and just reinforces how issues of teacher contracts, compensation, benefits, performance, evaluation, tenure, etc., are such hot topics of conversation. I mean, once you play a major role in a Law & Order storyline, you’ve become fully ensconced in the zeitgeist. And I thought it was pretty crazy that I happened to be reading our teachers’ contract at the same time.

By the way, there always seems to be a feeling of mystery surrounding the teachers’ contract. While negotiations are usually confidential, and while Board conversations regarding negotiations happen in closed-door Executive Sessions, the actual contract itself is a public document. You can read our current REA contract (as well as the RAA contract, RAES contract and Dr. Fishbein’s Superintendent’s contract) on the District website (click here).

If you’re interested in learning more about teachers’ contracts in general, I can recommend two very interesting websites:

TR3: Teacher Rules, Roles and Rights
In 2007, the National Council on Teacher Quality launched the database "TR3" which catalogs teachers contracts in the nation's largest school districts and allows users to analyze contracts from 100 districts in 50 states along major dimensions. The database has been hailed as a landmark step forward in understanding the role of contracts in the development and reform of human resources policies in education.

Explainer: Understanding Teacher Contracts
This interactive "explainer" puts two teacher contracts side by side so that readers can see what these often mysterious documents look like, and compares the differences and similarities in layman's terms in 10 key areas such as teacher pay, evaluation, the rights of teachers' unions, etc. It also includes a brief history of teachers' collective bargaining.

I found both of these sites to be really interesting and helpful, especially in providing perspective and a look at alternative approaches to common issues.

As conversations about teacher contracts unfold and become more significant across the country, in New Jersey, and here in Ridgewood, understanding what contracts actually contain and how they differ from one another will help everyone -- from BOE members to administrators, staff, parents and taxpayers -- to make sense of competing claims and to evaluate various policies and terms.

Why it may not be valid to use student test scores to evaluate teachers.

As New Jersey's Governor and Education Commissioner talk about tying teacher performance to compensation, and making some form of "merit pay" part of the reforms outlined in New Jersey's Race To The Top Application, I wanted to share this, from Diane Ravitch’s Bridging Differences blog on Education Week — a reasonable explanation for why it’s not valid to use student test scores in teacher evaluation:

I received an email from Dr. Harry Frank, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Michigan who has written textbooks about testing and measurement. Dr. Frank wrote that the first principle for valid assessment is that “no assessment can be used at the same time for both counseling and for administrative decisions (retention, increment, tenure, promotion). … All this does is promote cheating and teaching to the exam. … This principle is so basic that it’s often covered in the very first chapter of introductory texts on workplace performance evaluation.” [The full text of Dr. Frank's email is posted on my Web site, www.dianeravitch.com, in a section called "comments."] I asked Dr. Frank to explain the word “counseling,” and he said that this meant “feedback on performance for purposes of skills development,” what we might think of as the diagnostic use of an assessment. Dr. Frank also added: “Assessments should be a counseling resource, not a source of extrinsic motivation, i.e., rewards and punishments for teachers, administrators, and school districts.”

Put simply, tests and assessments should inform teachers about student progress and their own teaching, i.e., what can be learned from the test results. But it is inappropriate to use the same test results to hand out bonuses and punishments, promotions and tenure.

Click here to read the full post on Education Week.

Teachers of the Year Honored at Ed Center.

Last night was the annual Teacher Recognition reception and ceremony at the Ed Center. I love that event because it's so positive and focused on just one pure thing: quality teaching.

I especially love how many teachers and administrators come out to support and celebrate their colleagues. There were even some parents and students there, to say thank you to their favorite teachers. Just a great, positive event all around.

The following teachers were honored last night as Teachers of the Year in Ridgewood for 2010:

Hawes -- Charles Nebbia
Orchard -- Michelle Jones
Ridge -- AnnMarie Pecorelli
Somerville -- Cassandra Fabish
Travell -- Megan Glinkin
Willard -- Stephanie Zaccaria
BF -- Karla Mixon
GW -- Ann Brown
RHS -- Patrick Bernardo
Special Programs -- Marian Sacharoff

Governor Christie's latest "deal o' the day" could be devastating for Ridgewood

I'm truly sorry that every idea that Governor comes up with -- and he seems to have a new one every day -- is met by my skepticism or negative prediction. Honestly, I wish the guy would come up with something thoughtful and positive, something that shows he actually grasps the complexities of the issues and the ramifications of his sound bite education policy. I'd love to support some good, creative, non-destructive ideas.

Instead, the latest Hail Mary from Trenton is one of those over-simplified ideas that could harm our schools for years:

The governor has proposed changes to the state's pension and benefits rules that would give an incentive to teachers to retire. Under the plan, teacher retirements could jump seven-fold, with as many as 30,000 veteran educators statewide exiting before the next school year. In Ridgewood, estimates are that as many as 100 teachers could suddenly retire. While the money savings realized by replacing those higher-paid senior teachers with lower-paid new teachers could be significant, let's just think about the further ramifications:

If 100 teachers suddenly retired over the summer, Ridgewood would need to scramble to hire replacements. If 30,000 teachers retired statewide, we would find ourselves competing mightily to fill our staffing holes. And what happens when there's competition? Higher salaries...more expensive benefits...other forms of compensation or enticements to potential employees. We could find ourselves having to pay more to attract new teachers.

Another fallout -- with a seller's market created and staffing holes all over the state, we would likely see some of our remaining teachers deciding to test the waters and see if they can get a better deal somewhere else.

Then there are the effects in our classrooms. Many of our senior teachers function as either formal or informal mentors for our younger teachers. We would suffer with the loss of this experience.

Logisticallty, 100 new teachers getting up to speed, getting to know the district, the curriculum, getting to know students, parents and administrators...that's not the most smooth transition.

And, finally, what on earth is the Governor thinking in encouraging so many teachers to start drawing pensions? Can the state afford to pay out all those pensions? Considering the state has NOT funded its obligations into the pension system for 11 of the 15 years, I highly doubt the system can afford such a large outflow of cash.

I can't wait to hear what Governor Christie's idea is for today...

Some states are looking at alternatives to seniority-based teacher layoffs

Interesting op-ed piece in the LA Times about the frustrations and ramifications of laying off teachers according to seniority only. California is laying off around 30,000 teachers, so this is a pretty big concern throughout the state. The authors of this article talk about creating a "quality-based layoff system." Supposedly some other states are doing it...teachers in these other states seem to support it. I wonder what New Jersey's teachers would think? Is anyone working on this here?

Check it out...
California's quality-blind layoffs law harms teachers and students

Posted using ShareThis

A brief history of tenure

For those who often inquire about tenure, I did run across this interesting article from Time magazine a few months ago. Click below:

A Brief History of Tenure

I also learned that New Jersey was the first state to pass a teacher tenure law, in 1909. (New York Times, 10/10/76).