Op-Ed on LA Alignment from the Times
The Times' Bruce Ramsey wrote an Op-Ed on the District's plans for Language Arts alignment.
You can read it here: Seattle sacrifices Monster Lit
You can read it here: Seattle sacrifices Monster Lit
Tuesday Open Thread
The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested. It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio. (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Comments
SPS is homogenizing and standardizing the heck out of everything. A list of novels, Discovering math, Writers Workshop, what next?
Charters are looking more and more appealing these days.
SPS should tread carefully.
Charters are looking more and more appealing these days.
That all depends on which definition of "charter" you mean. If you are referring to the original concept of parents or local community forming their own school while still operating under the umbrella of the public school system, with all the requisite oversight and accountability, as well as the independent curriculum, that's one thing.
But if you mean the type of for-profit, privatized, corporate-run sometimes with strict discipline or even a military curriculum model (see Chicago) with little or no public oversight or accountability that Education Secretary Arne Duncan, the Broad Foundation, KIPP, Green Dot (see L.A.) and others are promoting, that's a different matter entirely.
Count me out.
There is also growing evidence that the latter style of charter schools do not necessarily perform better than public schools.
Lastly, as a Broad Foundation graduate and board member, one might legitimately question whether Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson is indeed trying to strengthen Seattle's public schools with all these not terribly rational changes she has been imposing this past year, or if she is instead laying the groundwork for charters to come to Seattle by making the schools more and more unappealing.
Maybe that's the path some of these so-called "education reformers" want SPS to tread.
Those on the bottom rungs won't complain, typically, so they can be neatly swept into charters, where they will taught Reading, Writing and Math. The rest of the system will continue with streamlining: If your child is getting a common curriculum and you don't like it, you can tutor, or offer enrichment at home (if you're middle class.) The wealthiest will simply move to districts that have rich and varied classes, or go to privates.
Why don't we talk about Waldorf charter schools? Waldorf doesn't believe in teaching children to read or write until they are developmentally ready (2nd or 3rd grade). They believe in tons of outdoor education, and flowery, hippie like, experiential learning through the arts.
How about the many performing arts charter schools, such as Lincoln Park Charter. Here is their description "Lincoln Park Performing Arts Charter School is a public school offering world-class training in music, theater, dance, creative writing, and media arts along with a rigorous academic program. "
How about Montessori charters (there are MANY), and Liberal Arts Charters, Charter schools of Law, Charter schools of medicine?
They are not all Kipp schools, and I think if we have these types of discussions then they should be honest and open minded. This isn't FOX news.
Will teachers help write this master list from HQ? Monster Lit sounds like an awesome class. I'd love to see it offered at every school, or included on a menu of choices for each school. Keep offerings relevant and timely. The idea of site-based curriculum choices makes more sense than central office lists at risk of being popped from the Everyday Math mold.
Also, does anyone know what the stats are for charter success rates? How many are thriving after 5 years? I agree that charters at worst, can be a cash cow for corporate ed. Some would argue that they move into districts that have proven unresponsive or incompetent, but their presence doesn't guarantee they'll do any better, especially if you have foundation alumni at the helm who've jumped from the public sector.
I'll delete that thought and clarify, that instead of a reading list for all, an a la carte list of choices would be a great approach, because while all students need access and should meet standards, I don't think anyone really believes that reading the same book is going to work or engage. Even encouraging neighborhood draw doesn't mean everyone is a south or north end villager with the same goals and opinions. I guess what ticks me off is the act of cutting off gifted teachers at the knees to appear like you've hit your mark.
And, conspiracy theory or no, I can't help notice that there's money to be made. Who would believe that whole countries' water systems would be privatized, the water to be meted out to those who have a buck or two? Yet it happens. Profiteers are everywhere, so I worry.
Exactly! Wasn't this the whole point of the Bellevue teachers' strike last fall? And SPS seems to be determined to limit our teachers' opportunities to be creative and fulfilled in their jobs at every turn.
Standards are one thing. Standards are fine. But why does it matter which book you use to write a literary analysis? Is this just one more case of SPS regulating what is easy to measure (Read House on Mango Street, check) vs. what is more difficult (Students know how to thoughtfully analyze text and express themselves in writing, hmmm check?)?
I actually don't think that Monster Lit should be taught at every school--other teachers should design courses around what they are passionate about. But it would be great if Mr Grosskopf would be willing to share his syllabus and reading list with other teachers to use as a guideline in designing their own courses. (And I'm betting he would be happy to)
The whole reason for standardized texts is to reduce the workload on central office staff who are writing lessons based on the content. Since they cannot script lessons on every book ever taught, they want to restrict the reading list. Then they can script the lessons.
Except one thing: we don't want scripted lessons.
Scripted lessons are evil.
If we decide that we don't want scripted lessons, then there is no need for restricted material lists.
Maybe Central staff should be reviewing teachers' lesson plans to make sure that they cover the skills mandated by the EALRS. And then principals can make sure that the teachers are actually teaching what is on their lesson plans.
Staff could then compile a file of existing (approved) lesson plans written by veteran teachers that would be available to new teachers as a starting point.
That seems like a better use of everyone's time/skills/passions.
There is a huge hue and cry for teacher "accountability." There are a variety of ways to do this:
1) old-school, CBA style - principal observes, looks at various pieces of curriculum in a classroom, etc.
2) old-school, CBA style, unimplemented: Same as above, but since principals have more on their plates than they can handle, hardly anything gets done. A pro-forma write-up in May.
Both of the above are subjective.
3) Use WASL scores: eek, won't work, too many variables.
4) my favorite (may someone have the foresight and money necessary), assemble teams of neutral evaluators (principals and others can have agendas) that travel the state, whose sole purpose is to evaluate instruction, lessons and curriculum, assessments, classwork etc.
5) "Performance management": Assemble scripted lessons around common texts, so you can (ideally) control the instruction and everything else. Then you measure (via the MAP system, announced today) "performance" of student and extrapolate it to the educator.
Now you have an evaluation of the teacher you can show people, with little charts and graphs and everything.
BUT, you may ask, what about the curriculum and intruction? What happens to these when the evaluation of educators supercedes the education of students?
Well....They're standardized, commodified...they're Kandy-colored tangerine-flake streamline roadsters: easy on the stakeholder's eyes and full of flash sitting at the curb, but take it out on the road and it just doesn't drive right.
Why bother having any trained teachers at all - why not just hire anyone who can read and write English (cos thats the dominant language here, no other reason) to deliver a prepared speech each day with the appropriate props...
Or better yet, replace people with videos that the kids watch, have supervisors/security guards make sure each kid is on the right page and sits in their seats for the whole 40 or 90 minutes and doesnt talk or interact or fight...
Or better yet (and I think this is idea was submitted to this blog almost a year ago in response to MGJ's assertion that class size doesnt affect academic outcome), why not bus all the kids in from all over town - north, south, east and west - and put them in an empty stadium (we have three to choose from), break them up into age groups and give them their education via giant video screens...
Would solve the assignment plan problems, no worries about sibling placing, no worries about the inequality in schools' resourcing and programming and 'performance', no building maintenance, no dealing with teachers and unions...
That's what standardisation really looks like, if you take it to its logical conclusion.... we're only two or three steps away from that place...
WV = verais - from the old french and latin for 'true'
2nd WV = 'blesbehu'... blessed be you, blessed be humans?