Showing posts with label Department of Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Education. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

The Politics of School Reform


Governor Terry Branstad and his Education director, Jason Glass, deserve credit for initiating a statewide discussion about education.  Although they illustrated there are no quick fixes for Iowa’s schools, some good will come of these sessions.  Most every idea discussed carries a heavy price tag at a time when the state has precious few dollars to spare.
Iowa is better off than many states, but it continues to walk a thin line.  Many Iowa students are achieving, but far too many are not.  Gathering people around the table to discuss our problems is a good start.  Solving them will require an overhaul of public education the likes of which Iowa has never before contemplated.
The Branstad proposals released in October mainly focus on student testing, teaching quality and things like the length of the school day.  The answer does not lie in more testing or simply adding class time.  We have to rethink how and what is taught.  And, dare I say it; we need to give educators a larger role in determining policy.
The Testing Myth
It is important to test students, but the questionable Bush Leave no Child Behind policies, the Obama Race to the Top competition, or Branstad’s recent proposals all offer testing as some mysterious panacea for American schools.  Testing doesn’t improve learning, just as monitoring your blood pressure won’t improve your health.
A high blood pressure reading helps pinpoint a problem.  Improving your health will take effort and that starts by changing diet and increasing exercise.  Testing in the classroom is the same.  Testing provides an indicator of how students are performing.  Improving learning starts by changing how and what subjects are taught, and increasing rigor in the classroom.  Your blood pressure won’t go down faster if you monitor it more often, and kids won’t learn better if we test them more.
In 2011, testing has become so important in the classroom it overshadows the most important aspect of learning.  Teaching students to think and apply subject matter often takes a backseat to helping students successfully parrot information by filling in bubbles on a standardized test.
The School Calendar is a Small Part of the Problem
Just as Iowans can count on a congressional election every couple of years and one for president and governor every four, they can count on at least one candidate talking about our antiquated school calendar during every campaign.  Every election cycle we hear about how the school year is based on an outmoded agrarian calendar.  We are reminded kids are not needed in farm fields anymore and how we lag behind other countries in the amount of time students spend in the classroom.  But, the passion for doing anything about this dwindles as the election fades in the rearview mirror.
Oddly, the amount of instructional time has decreased recently.  If one adds up the minutes lost to school days shortened to balance tight budgets, being released early every Wednesday so teachers can plan, the switch to block scheduling in high school (block schedules gives more minutes per period, but fewer total minutes per subject) and the amount of additional time designated for taking standardized tests; my kids have lost weeks of instructional time compared to their counterparts a few years ago.
It is one thing to talk about keeping school open longer during an information session with constituents, doing something about it takes political capital few elected officials have and tax resources few are willing to commit.
Thomas
The sad truth is adding time in the classroom and developing the perfect evaluation tools would have minimal impact.  What and how we are teaching needs to change even more than time spent doing so and how students’ knowledge is tested.
Visit my daughter’s middle school and you will understand the depth of the problem.  Wander the halls long enough and you will encounter one child who embodies the issue.  I’ll call him Thomas.  He is a hulking man-child large enough to play linebacker for the Bears.  He is generally kind, always talkative and a handful for any teacher tasked with trying to reach a class full of adolescent hormone-pumping near-teens.  Thomas has difficulty sitting still, will never go to college and is unlikely to develop the tools he needs to make it through the most basic classes required to graduate from high school.  Most class periods, Thomas’ teachers give in to his restlessness and allow him to “go to the bathroom.”  Thomas routinely roams the halls unquestioned for countless minutes every day.  While he is out there, his teachers have the ability to better focus on teaching the rest of his class.
Thomas is sacrificed, so others can learn.
Middle school is the dirty underbelly of our school systems.  Even though the problem began long before many students reached the middle years, it is there students like Thomas begin to be squeezed from the system.  In a perfect world, there would be a learning environment better suited for students like Thomas.  While it is an oversimplification to say we operate a one-size-fits-all public school system, even the greatest defender of our current schools will admit we do not have the alternatives required to help every child reach his potential.
Political Will
As does Governor Branstad, the Des Moines Register deserves some credit for adding to the conversation by publishing an ongoing series about education reform.  It is important for students, parents, teachers, political leaders, business people and the public to have honest discussions about fixing our schools.  Far too many children are failing to learn in Iowa schools and we need to put our heads together to find the solutions and, most important, build consensus for funding a fundamental change in public education.  The payback will be worth it, but the cost to do this correctly will be immense.
Until we commit dollars and political capital in equal measures to creating alternative learning environments aimed at reaching students at every part of the learning spectrum; we will continue to see schools fall short of what we expect from them.  If the school calendar is considered antiquated, the curriculum model we continue to follow for our schools must be called ancient.
Students like Thomas, students headed to college and students destined to become skilled laborers require different things from school.  It won’t matter how many minutes or days are added to the school calendar, or how many tests we administer; as long as we allow students like Thomas to fall through the cracks and do not provide teachers the resources they need to reach every student, we will never have a school system capable of performing as it should.
###
Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Des Moines Schools Blame Game with IA Dept. of Ed and DM Register


In my last blog I expressed annoyance with the Des Moines School Board for its apparent lack of knowledge of and, more specifically, concern about the troubling accreditation report issued by the Iowa Department of Education.  I concluded by calling the School Board an impotent body.  It appears I was wrong to single out the School Board.  Unfortunately, the Department of Education does not exactly stand tall with competence either.
My blog caught Superintendent Nancy Sebring’s attention.  Convinced my sole source of information had been the Des Moines Register, she invited me to coffee to lay out the facts saying “you need to know that there were serious factual errors in their reports (and editorial) regarding the accreditation report.”
I accepted the invitation immediately.  We spent nearly two hours reviewing the Iowa Department of Education’s findings, the school district’s responses, the School Board’s involvement and the Register’s coverage.
Dr. Sebring acknowledged the 19 specific areas of non-compliance in the report.  We went through most of them in detail and discussed how the District was addressing or planned to address each.  She wanted me to know the District was taking the matter very seriously.  However, the primary errors she pointed to were not made by the Register, but by the Iowa Department of Education.
Let me be clear, Dr. Sebring told me she believes the Register’s stories and editorial border on slander.  Dr. Sebring carelessly tosses around accusations of slander and conspiracy, but I do not immediately dismiss her charges.  In fact, they demand discussion and I will write more on this later.  Today, I am going to focus on the Department of Education.
One error made by the Department of Education rises above the rest.  Listed in the findings of the Department’s official report the District received on June 22 was Item 11 in the section titled Areas of Non-Compliance:  Chapter 12 mandates Des Moines Schools.  It said the District had yet to submit a signed assurance from the superintendent that two people who were teaching had been “removed from the assignment of teaching…and not paid for the teaching assignment” as of “April 7, 2011, the date the district was officially notified,” because neither person was “endorsed or certified to teach.”  Officially notified?  Perhaps not.
According to Dr. Sebring, an exhaustive search of District Email and paper files, and extensive discussions with staff and former staff indicate the Department never notified the School District two people had to be removed from teaching.  Further, Sebring told me she was baffled as to why the District was cited at all in the case of an assistant teacher who was teaching Chinese in an elementary school.  She claims the District had received oral approval from a state education official to utilize this person as a teacher before the school year began.
It seemed implausible the Department of Education would demand two people be fired without documenting each step of the process.  So, I asked the Department of Education for the dated transmittal documents and the original official demand the individuals be removed from teaching by April 7.  Surprisingly, there are no such documents.

The document the Iowa Department of Education provided as proof it had mandated two people be removed from teaching in Des Moines classrooms.
The Department sent me a copy of the preliminary report the Department claims was transmitted to the District and a copy of a hand-scrawled, undated note from a departing Education employee to her superior.  The note explains where on a computer the preliminary report was to be found and that, “This is the document given to Mike Munoz on 4/7/11.”  Munoz was a District employee who has also left his job.  The note was signed “Julie.”
Holy cats!  Thousands of dollars and countless man hours went into compiling an accreditation report showing 19 disquieting deficiencies in the Des Moines Schools.  In response to the findings, the Department demanded the District fire two employees without notice and the main documentation the Department can provide is a nearly illegible internal note proving nothing.
It’s a classic he said/she said argument of incompetence.
The Department’s apparent lack of internal documentation and controls in this case give credence to Dr. Sebring’s assertion the District might have received oral consent from the Department to hire the uncertified Chinese language teacher in the first place.  After getting a look at the shoddy way the Department of Education keeps records it seems possible.
I have been told Jason Glass, director of the Iowa Department of Education plans to attend tomorrow’s Des Moines School Board meeting.  No word on if he will address the report or the District’s accusations, but it seems likely.  One can only hope both the Department and the District will learn oral agreements and off-the-record chatter cannot stand-in for documentation and controls.
One has to wonder why the District didn’t demand something more than a handshake when seeking an exemption from state law to use an uncertified teacher in the classroom and why the Department would think the District would act on a document so clearly marked draft, even if it was handed to a District administrator as the Department purports.
But, let’s remember, one entity’s ineptitude does not excuse another’s.  The fact the Des Moines School Board had not received or read the State’s report did not stop one board member from saying, “I believe the school district is addressing each and every one of these issues.”
The School Board did not read what the Department of Education had written, and the Department apparently does not put in writing that which needs to be documented.
Looks like education officials in Des Moines and Iowa could both use a Viagra type infusion of competence.
###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

It’s Time for a Des Moines Schools P.E. Intervention


Fact:    Childhood obesity has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last thirty years
         Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 3, 2010

Fact:    The Des Moines Schools have made it tougher for students to get a waiver to
         opt out of physical education
         Source: More States Let Students Opt out of PE, USAToday, December 14, 2010
Reality: Something about roads paved with good intentions


America’s crisis is easy to see.  It is lopping over the belts of our nation’s kids.  Sarah Palin may not believe childhood obesity is a problem and she may find it easy to discount the serious efforts of Michelle Obama to address the issue, but the health consequences for fat kids are real.
The Des Moines School District is right to act.  However, such a serious and complex problem will not be solved by instituting tough sounding policies that, in the practice, only result in student athletes having to take P.E.
Let me explain.In years past, high school students with full academic schedules could take contract physical education as long as they exercised on their own outside the school day or played sports and logged their activity for review by a teacher.  Students who participated in athletic programs such as basketball, cross-country, swimming or other school sports, and those who danced, played hockey or did something outside of the District would be able to claim their rehearsal, practice and game time to meet the minimum physical education standard of the few laps around the school track and Ping-Pong games their fellow students were doing during the school day.  To show they were cracking down on the collective student bulge, Des Moines Schools did away with this waiver.
For the most part, the kids who are playing sports and participating in other athletic endeavors outside the confines of the school day are not part of America’s fat problem.  Taking away the waiver was a bad idea.
Let me cite an example.A Des Moines high school student with a full schedule of advanced classes and fine arts sought the waiver before school began in August.  She and her parents were confident the student’s standout performance on the school cross-country team and her work as a contributing member of the basketball team and other extracurricular athletics would far surpass any standard the District would require.  The guidance counselor denied the waiver and told the student she had to enroll in P.E.   When asked what class should be dropped, the counselor suggested, and I am not making this up, the student drop math.  That was jaw-dropping silly and after plenty of wrangling, the student was given another option.
The United States is falling farther and farther behind in how it stacks up to other nations when it comes to education.  A school system that signals an educator to tell a student athlete to drop math so she can sit through the joke many high school P.E. programs are insults the student and is missing the larger picture.
Here’s what needs to be done.
  1. Fix the school lunch program.  As Jamie Oliver’s outstanding exposé on the sorry state of school lunches showed this fall, there is much we should do to fix how we feed our nation’s school children.  This should be a top priority for U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.  His department controls the federal dollars that fund school lunches.  He has done some, but needs to do more.
  2. Fix physical education.  P.E. has not changed much since many of us were kids:
    Changing into workout clothes  - ten minutes
    Attendance  - ten minutes
    Instructions about the day’s activities – ten minutes
    Students turned loose to jog/walk the track – ten minutes
    Activity of the day – ten minutes
    Attendance to make sure nobody skipped out – ten minutes
    Change clothes/shower – ten minutes
  3. Integrate health education, nutrition and exercise into the curriculum and activities throughout the school day.  For example, we need to teach students why putting the Cheetos downand why walking a few blocks instead of riding in a car are good ideas.
I know I have oversimplified some of this, but not much.  There are great P.E. teachers and I shouldn’t stereotype.  But, you get my point, physical education programs are lacking.
It is time for parents, students and schools to take obesity seriously.  It starts by doing away with policies that deny P.E. waivers to student athletes just because a school board wants to look like they are doing something in the battle to trim waistlines.
###
Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.