Archive for the 'Education' Category

Yesterday’s IR had a piece on a ‘controversial’ applicant pre-screening test used in the Helena school district. The cause of ‘controversy’ is that the goal of the test is to build a profile of the teacher’s style and disposition as opposed to knowledge or grasp of the subject matter:

It’s not a typical test, though, because TeacherInsight doesn’t have any clear right or wrong answers. Instead, applicants are asked how they would handle particular situations.
-
But it’s those nebulous questions, and the fact the results are not made known, that have potential teachers like Flemming and retired local educators like Rita Williams questioning the process.
[snip]
The test is an instrument that measures the likelihood of the test-taker’s ability to be an effective teacher.
-
“It’s a predictor — not a guarantee — they’ll be an effective teacher,” Helena School District Superintendent Bruce Messinger said. “We’ll get content out of other things. It’s more about characteristics that predict highly effective teachers.”

First of all, lets build a shared assumption here. There were over 600 applicants for 24 job openings in the Helena school district (don’t tell me that more money doesn’t attract a better selection). When we screen an applicant at my job, it takes at least a half day with us before they get to the real interview with the top brass. With so many applicants, it would take one person a full year to properly screen each one. Even then, the teachers are at the mercy of a single persons opinion. This is unrealistic, so we must assume that there should be some sort of automated pre-screening system in place.

Based on the assumption that there must be some sort of pre-screening mechanism in place, I see a few alternatives to this type of system. One is to base the pre-screening metrics on accomplishments alone. For instance, give precedence to teachers with masters degrees over bachelors degrees. That would filter the number down nicely. An additional metric could be based on the school: graduates of Stanford, MIT and Yale get preference over MSU and U of M grads. In our screening device, we could give additional weight based on years of experience.

Sounds great doesn’t it? Surely these things should be considered, but I see a big problem using these as the only metrics. As far as level of education, it speaks more to knowledge of subject matter than to ability to effectively teach kids. Knowing a thing is one thing, being able to help another learn that thing is a completely different beast. As far as schools go, I don’t believe this indicates anything at all. I work with graduates from MIT, CMU and Stanford everyday, while they are capable enough, so are the people from MSU and U of M. Verifiable experience might be the best indicator of all, but some of the worst teachers I ever had also taught my Mom when she was a kid.

Many of the complaints about the TeacherInsight test was that the questions had no clear right or wrong answers. Well, that’s pretty much how real life works. I am positive that the claim that bright capable teachers have been culled by the test is 100% correct, but I also think that the same would be true of face to face interviews.

The following is a guest post from Denise Juneau, Democratic candidate for Montana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. This post is part of a series designed to allow our readers to get to know Montana candidates and should not be construed as an endorsement.

U.S. Representative Dale Kildee has a terrific way of referencing the appropriate role for the federal government in education. He says that providing education is a state responsibility, a local function, and a federal interest. We appreciate the interest and assistance of our federal partners, but I argue for a federal role that is supportive of state efforts – not one that attempts to control our important work - or that seeks to simply penalize our schools without providing sufficient resources to address areas that need improvement.

Through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB), the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government has a new set of requirements for public education that hopes to improve schools through a strict accountability process. Public schools that receive federal Title I funds are subject to a progressive list of sanctions based on student performance on state standardized assessments. If a certain percentage of students do not score “proficient” on the state assessment, a school is labeled as “in need of improvement” and faces increased sanctions until removed from the list for improving their test scores.

I have specific concerns with NCLB, which are detailed below, but primarily focus on the policy’s assumption that the worth of a school can be measured by the average test score of its students. Although academic achievement is a critical goal, I believe schools have a much more nuanced role for students and communities than raising test scores on math and reading. Despite its limitations, NCLB has shed light on achievement gaps between groups of students in our schools, and we must remain ever vigilant in our efforts to close those gaps through concentrated focus and support. State efforts such as Indian Education for All, Quality Educator Loan Assistance and various scholarships available for summer and postsecondary programs represent important steps towards meeting the needs of ALL of Montana’s students. I will work to continue such programs, and ensure their existence in the face of federal requirements.

I see the role of State Superintendent in relation to the federal government as two-fold: conduit and advocate. Not only will I provide strong leadership as a conduit - interpreting and implementing complicated federal legislation, but will work as an advocate to represent the needs of Montana in the creation and enforcement of federal education policies. Let me expand on these two important roles:

Conduit: The State Superintendent must have a sophisticated understanding of the complex and fluid requirements and funding mechanisms in a federal law such as NCLB, and how these requirements translate to local contexts in Montana communities. It is my job to lead the Office of Public Instruction in interpreting and implementing the law to fulfill these requirements in the ways most responsive to the needs of Montana. My experience as an attorney, teacher and state-level administrator uniquely equips me with the experience and skills needed to apply complicated legislation to local educational contexts.

Advocate: An equally important role of the State Superintendent is to be an advocate for the state when the federal government creates such legislation. NCLB is scheduled for reauthorization most likely within the next two years. Representative George Miller (D-CA), as well as the Department of Education, has already put forward a number of proposed changes and members of Congress are soliciting feedback from the states. I have developed some important recommendations for how these changes can best serve a state such as Montana. For example:
- Provide flexibility for rural states so schools can get back to their job of educating the “whole student” – including Montana’s long tradition of arts and humanities. NCLB has narrowed the curriculum and has teachers spending the entire month of March preparing students to “take the test.” We need to vitalize our schools, ensuring that learning remain joyful, balanced, and works toward a sense of good citizenship, not just high math and reading achievement.
- Develop additional ways to determine the quality of schools that go beyond a single test score, since we all understand that one test score does not paint the entire picture. For example, an evaluation of a school should consider its contribution to the growth of students in academic areas (test scores, grades, courses taken, graduation rates) and social areas (attendance, behavior, attitude towards school, civic participation, etc).
-Properly fund the legislation on the federal level so NCLB is no longer an “unfunded mandate”. NCLB includes many requirements that place additional financial and administrative burdens on both the state and districts, without providing additional resources to help school out of the sanction process.
-In addition to highlighting and working on areas of potential improvement, we need to also promote the good things that are happening in our schools every day. Montana is full of bright, capable and motivated students, teachers and administrators who deserve to be recognized for their many accomplishments.

I have to admit, when local educators Don Pogreba and Jason Neiffer announced their candidacies for the highest positions in the state, I wondered what sort of a gimmick it was. I mean, while they are really well respected bloggers, they hardly fit the criteria of the traditional gubernatorial candidates. Though I spoke up in favor, my initial fear was that their intentions were to take pot shots at the governor, providing fodder that would ultimately weaken him in the general.

Pograba has claimed his candidacy as an effort to open a state wide dialog on education. and while they are extreme long shots for winning the primary on June 3rd, their campaign feels like a complete success so far. As I noted Don’s piece in the Billings Gazette over the weekend, I see that there is a piece by Chuck Johnson in the Helena IR. You see, without these guys getting off their butts and running on what they believe in, readers would not be seeing a headline that reads Pogreba: State hasn’t met school funding decision and they wouldn’t be reminded of things like this:

“I think more money for education will prevent the need for more money for corrections,” he said. “I’ve never understood why we want to send more money for jail cells and not for textbooks.”
[snip]
“Our philosophy is we shouldn’t be looking to 1950 for our economic solutions,” he said. “We should be looking to 2050. By that, we should not assume that resource extraction is a long-term solution for our economy.”

These are good words for folks to be thinking about over their morning coffee. Without this candidacy, they would not likely be reading anything of the sort tomorrow morning. As my hero George Ochenski points out:

Instead of talking about school funding issues, which are once again back in court, or mentioning teacher salaries, school district consolidation, or cleaning out top-heavy administration, (Roy) Brown’s big education proposal is this: “Roy will urge the Montana High School Association (MHSA) to establish tournaments of champions, so athletes in virtually all sports, and in all communities have a chance to perform and succeed on a higher level.”

It’s this kind of frustration with the current candidates for governor that motivated the two teachers to consider raising the bar by entering the race. And while they say Schweitzer has done “a great job” as governor compared to the Republicans before him, they also think the entire education debate would be well served by bringing it to the forefront of the campaign. If it’s just Schweitzer versus Brown, they say, “we’re not overwhelmingly optimistic there is going to be a great discussion of education in a general election campaign.” Because Roy Brown is so far to the right, Pogreba says he thinks it would be “good to engage Governor Schweitzer right now.”

This is an important discussion to be having, and I give major kudos to Don and Jason for making sure that we are having it. In the past I have viewed non traditional candidates with a wary eye as ‘attention seekers’. I suppose that is exactly what Don and Jason are doing, only this time it isn’t out of vanity.

Note: This piece is a discussion of the Pogreba/Neiffer campaign and should not be considered as and endorsement any more than this note should be considered as a lack of one.