The Tragedy Of Cheating Scandals

One of the lovely legacies that the pressure inherent in the high-stakes testing that NCLB requires has left us is the cheating scandal. There have been several cheating scandals and allegations in the last several years-- Atlanta and Washington, DC are the most well covered. Well, now our own Philadelphia Public School District has its own (alleged) scandal: The principal at Roosevelt Middle School has been accused of altering tests and giving out answers to 'help' her students make AYP. This saddens me, but if it is true, is not all that suprising.
Let me say that I believe the No Child Left Behind Law to be essentially unjust and the Adequate Yearly Progress goal to be unfair. However, I do not think cheating is ever justified. First of all, depending on how the cheating takes place, students are made complicit in an illegal act, and no educator should ever do that. Secondly, even if students do not know they are cheating (for example, their answers are changed after they hand in the test), they are given inaccurate results and a false idea of their achievement. Thirdly, it does not really help anyone, or address the inequity of many standardized tests or of our present system. And, last, but certainly not least--IT IS JUST FLAT-OUT WRONG.

Having said all of that, I can also say that I can truly understand and even empathize slightly with the thinking that makes such cheating scandals possible. NCLB and AYP put a huge amount of pressure on school districts to 'improve achievement' (notice it does not say improve learning). Despite all this emphasis on improving test scores and achievement, the monetary and social supports needed to help all children learn are not forthcoming. In fact, stating that anything outside the classroom impacts learning (when we all know it does) has become a copout--thereby enabling 'reformers' and corporate 'do-gooders' to put all the blame for low achievement on the people inside the schools--primarily teachers and principals. Some people, when they see the inequities of the system, when they are bullied and criticized at every turn, when their very livelihood and the calling they have poured their heart and soul into is threatened, will resort to a 'by any means necessary' mentality to raise test scores. None of these reasons justify cheating, they just sadly explain it.

The atmosphere at many schools around testing can easily become paranoid and poisonous. Principals are harangued by regional chairpeople and superintendents, and --in turn--return to their schools to pressure teachers and students. We all want to do our best every day to help our students learn, but most of us agree that test pressure and teaching to the test are not conducive to true learning. Some sort of standardized evaluation is needed, but what is the best and fairest way to do this? That is a discussion for another day, but I think that we can all see that this retaliatory and adversarial system that seems to lead almost inexorably to some cheating is not good for our students or our educational system.

When Is A Public Meeting NOT A Public Meeting?

The sign at the back of the auditorium in which the SRC meets says "legal capacity 240". According to several sources inside the auditorium at about 3:45 PM today, there were 160 people in the room. That is apparently when the (at first unnamed) Fire Marshal (later the name Bill Bankhead was given out by a School District Employee) decided the room was "over capacity" and closed the SRC Meeting to any more members of the public. The School District set up a video feed and seating area in a downstairs lobby--but a viewing area IS NOT participatory, it is passive. Here is an account of what happened when the public, including TAG members, parents, students, teachers and other members of the public tried to attend the meeting:
*When I entered the 440 building at about 3:45, the polite and professional school police officer at the entrance told me the meeting was full, but I could sit in the viewing area. I said I was going to try to go up, he said "good luck" (not unpleasantly).
*When I got upstairs to the hallway leading to the auditorium, about 20 or so people were waiting there. I talked to fellow TAG (Teacher Action Group) members, and asked the school police officer guarding the door from the public if I could go in. He said the fire marshal had declared the meeting over capacity. (I have this officer's name, but will not print it for fear he will lose his job).
*I pointed out that there were clearly empty seats visible on the video feed. The officer told me "do not question me again" and to go sit down.
*I asked the officer for the name of the fire marshal, was it a city fire marshal, a school district fire marshal, what was his/her name? He said he did not know, but that the school district had fire marshals. I again asked for the name.
*During this time, students, parents, community members and other members of the PUBLIC were trying to gain access to a PUBLIC meeting and were being turned away. The officer was professional and somewhat polite, but clearly getting frustrated.
*When questioned again by me and several other people, the officer again said he did not know the name of the fire marshal, but the Lieutenant (nameless) did. He refused a request to call said Lieutenant so we could find out which PUBLIC official had closed a PUBLIC meeting.
*At that point (about 4:15PM), more and more people were arriving, and it was becoming clear that the people gathered were NOT going to leave. The next person who asked the officer why the meeting was closed was told "My boss told me not to let anyone in." The fire marshal/over capacity story had been abandoned completely.
*A School District official came out (everyone I saw was very careful to have their picture ID turned AWAY from the public) and said they might have room for 20 people in a few minutes. The officer said he would pick the 20 people who had been there the longest, and tried to rationally choose people to enter. He was a little rude to some young students (who had not said anything disrespectful that I heard), and several TAG members allowed students to go into the meeting in their stead.
*At 4:30, some us were finally admitted to the meeting. We were instructed to take empty seats and NOT stand in the back. (Although there were many District Officials standing in the back).
*I believe this instruction was given to make sure we could not all stand together for our protest.
NEXT UP: Inside the SRC Meeting:
OK--We were in the public meeting. I sat next to a nice woman who lent me her printed agenda with the speakers listed. We were there to listen to testimony and carry out a respectful democratic action (holding up signs demanding transparency and putting duct tape over our mouths to symbolize our voicelessness).
*I was quite moved by some of the testimony, and perplexed by others.
* Some students from Martin Luther King High School (scheduled to be Renaissanced) spoke movingly about their attachment to their school and teachers/counselors, and their strong feeling that they should not be considered failures, and their hope that their school would not lose the programs they valued.
*Onika Richardson, a well-spoken student from Audenried who squared off against Ackerman last week spoke again, and said she had brought data to prove that the District's stated data about her school was inaccurate. She offered the data to the SRC--they took it. She also mentioned that she and her fellow students also felt disrespected in meetings with District officials because said officials often "played on their phones and texted" during the meetings. Behavior, by the way, which a teacher or principal would not tolerate in class.
*Next was the brave Mary Delsavio who brought a letter from a frustrated and burned out (yet dedicated) Promise Academy teacher delineating the many problems with the Promise Academy model. Now, at the SRC meetings, each registered speaker is announced as he/she approaches the podium and the names are on the printed agenda--however, when it became clear that Ms. Delsavio was reading a critical letter, a member interrupted her to ask her name AGAIN (what, he was not listening?). She continued to read a very lovely and well-constructed letter about the constraints of the scripted curricula and other features of the "promise" model. The letter was long, but the audience was rapt and then Archie imperiously interjected "you will need to sum up, there are other speakers." Many speakers then called out "We'll wait.", but Archie insisted on the summing up--which Mary then did. She left the podium only to be called back by the very people who had wanted her to hurry---they very pointedly said "What is your name again?" Now, her name had been announced TWICE, they had a printed agenda in front of them, but they asked her name AGAIN. There was a palpable and uncomfortable feeling of intimidation in the air. She said her name, they said "You are here as what?" (I guess meaning a community member, parent , teacher, etc...), and then asked her what her position was (teacher mentor), and pressed rather hard to know WHO wrote the letter (she refused to say, citing fear of "pushback"-- I wonder why). They then said, "Can we at least know what school, so we can investigate?" (Perhaps meaning intimidate teachers and pit them against each other.) Mary said she would not answer and said that she knew as a mentor that the letter could have been written by many of her teachers.
*It was during some of these testimonies that TAG members stood (silently) with duct tape on our mouths and signs demanding transparency and voice.
*Up next was Desiree Whitfield, a parent of a kindergartner from Greenfield who has shown up to defend Ackerman a couple of times lately. Which, I will say, is her right as an American. However, she read an ill-informed and inaccurate screed against Hope Moffet--making it sound (wrongly) as if Moffet had personally set up the walk-out at Audenried and forced the students to the rally.
*Lisa Haver spoke eloquently abouth the need for community involvement and voice and questioned why the SRC (as the old School Board did) could not have at least every other meeting at night in a neighborhood school (where parking and access are not limited). Good question--no answer forthcoming.
*A bus company owner (Mr. Wilson) spoke about the need for more transparent bidding procedures for contracters.
*Teacher Sharon Newman spoke passionately in defense of young, enthusiastic teachers like Hope Moffet, and appealed to the SRC to take all the facts into consideration.

At this point (about 5:15 PM) an SRC member noted that they had been "working since 8:30" (though the meeting did not start until 2:00) and needed a 15-minute break. Fair enough, most teachers (and I daresay parents) had been working since 7:30, so we all needed a break. At that point, I left to go home and continue my workday as a teacher (grading, e-mailing, setting up meetings, etc..), and the SRC meeting went on.... All in all, an interesting experience, but I did get a feeling that, at points, the SRC was just going through the motions of hearing the community.

Proud To Be A Philadelphia Teacher

Last Friday, I had the pleasure and honor of attending the Teacher Action Group Rally for Public Education in front of our (yes, our) administration building at 440 North Broad Street. When my colleagues and I arrived at a little before 4:00 PM, School District Police stood on the top step of the building looking imposing. Of course, they need not have worried, the rally that followed was passionate and spirited but respectful. I believe it showed the best of Philadelphia: an ethnic, racial, and class mix of community members, students, parents, and teachers all coming together to support a crucial part of our city--public education. The young leaders of the Teacher Action Group (TAG) spoke about our community cause (having a true voice in what happens to OUR schools) and read a supportive statement from Jerry Jordan, the president of the PFT. Other teachers and community members spoke eloquently about the impact and meaning of a true public education--the PUBLIC must be involved. After a few speeches, a young man who happens to be a junior at Audenried High School (slated for takeover by a charter company with no community input) spoke. Maurice Johnson, an articulate, earnest young man that any parent or teacher would be proud to call their own, spoke quite movingly about what his school meant to him. He rightly pointed out that his school--about to be given away lock, stock, and 55 million dollar barrel to Kenny Gamble's charter company--was NOT a failure, had not even been given a chance to prove it yet to prove what they know. The juniors in the new Audenried are the first class in that school--and as such have not yet taken the PSSAs which are given in March. (Ironically, although there is no data to prove the new Audenried a failure, there is plenty of data to question the effectiveness of Gamble's Universal Company). Maurice pointed out--rightly from a student's point-of-view--that when kids hear Arlene Ackerman call their school a failure, they hear themselves being called failures. Now this may not be what the "award-winning" Dr. Ackerman intends when she throws the word failure around so blithely, but it is what children hear. Her bullying, top-down, and ham-handed approach to school reform (many can agree we need school improvement) leaves the educational community feeling bullied and bruised. How much more effective could these "reforms" be if students, teachers, and community members without million dollar federal grants were asked what THEY need, what THEY want. Maurice and his classmates (as well as the rest of us) would like to find out. The most barn-burning, rabble-rousing (and I mean that in the best democratic sense) speech of the day came from firebrand retired principal Frank Murphy. Murphy pointed out in a fervent speech that a great leader has many collaborative and communication skills that our current leader seems to lack. If we ever got to choose someone to run our school, Frank would be my candidate. He knows what it is to be a true collaborative educator, not just a "boss". We wound down at about 5:00 PM, happy that-even if we had not been heard by the "bosses", we had stated our piece. Even as we stood in the bitter high winds last Friday, I saw colleagues, students, and community members both familiar and unknown to me whose dedication to children, and schools, and communities made me proud to be a part of this great city where American freedom was born and nurtured.

The Good Things (and they DO exist)

I read a very dispiriting comment in The Philadelphia Public School Notebook
today. It was from a teacher (I have no idea how new or experienced) who feels completely worn out, undervalued, and disrespected at her job in a Philadelphia public school. It made me quite sad for several reasons: It brings home the point that the teaching profession is under fire like never before, it makes me wonder if we can attract and keep good teachers to this very challenging and rewarding profession, and it forces me to consider if teachers themselves (me included) have contributed to to the negative narrative by talking too much about the sometimes exhausting and frustrating aspects of our jobs. There is no doubt that we in Philadelphia (as well as many other areas of the country) have epic challenges before us, and there are times when we wonder why we do what we do and how much longer we will be able to do it. However, there are many wonderful and rewarding things about teaching--not the least of which is the connections we are able to make with students. If you are lucky enough to work in a good school--and by good I do not mean the best test scores, the richest neighborhood, or the newest building--I mean a place with a sense of purpose and community--you can play a meaningful role in the lives of many children. Of course, we are not as important as parents in a child's life, but we do spend a great deal of time with them. Although it is the big things that make news, it is the little things that make our job worth it every day. So, in no particular order, I am listing some things that have made me smile lately (school things):

*The fact that my corrective reading students (as not-fun as it can be) vie for their turn to read out loud.

*A student stopping by my room at the end of the day to apologize (unasked) for earlier bad behavior in class.

*A girl excitedly telling me between classes that she was asked to interview at one of her chosen high schools.

*A student new to our school and resistant to my small group reading class opening up during a writing assignment about one of his favorite places to go.

*Our former students (now in high school) who come back to see us several times a year just to say hello and touch base.

*Colleagues who help me, build me up, let me blow off steam, and make me laugh every day.

*Second graders who like to say hi to me and think it is a big deal to know the 7th and 8th grade teacher (because I teach their sibs).

*Routinely having children (yes, kids raised in this day and age) who open doors for us, offer to carry our bags and boxes, and are otherwise helpful.

*Having a student smile widely and say "Really?!", when I tell him he can take home the book he was reading from my classroom library.

*The fact that, no matter what the district and the reform "experts" throw at us, I truly believe we are making a positive difference in the lives of children every day.

I am not really a Pollyanna or cheerleader, but I believe in what we do. My school is just a regular Philadelphia public school (not magnet), our kids and staff are not perfect, but there is goodness and curiosity in them, and we are a community. Dozens of schools like this exist all over this city. We need to try to think of the good things that we experience every day, and even though we are tired and put upon, try to reach out to colleagues who are losing heart.

School Safety and Spending Tax Dollars

School safety has been much in the news lately--and, not surprisingly, Dr. Ackerman (Philadlephia's School Superintendent) has recently been in the news for that reason.
Apparently, Dr. Ackerman's extreme concern for the safety of all her students led her to take a few shortcuts and award a no-bid contract for camera installation in an improper manner. Ackerman's actions with taxpayers' money and her imperious attitude are disturbing enough, but the really bothersome part of this whole issue is that the camera installation was scheduled and paid for ONLY because the State Department of Education was about to release a report saying that many of our district's schools remain dangerous. It does not seem to me and many others who work in schools that Ackerman was truly concerned about the safety of those students in her care--what she was concerned about was the appearance of action. She wanted to be seen to be doing something--it does not matter if the cameras will really help keep kids safe, just as long as it seems that way. As the Metropolis blog discussed this morning, looks appear to be paramount to this administration. Will cameras, which will only record what is happening to identify perpetrators after the fact, really make schools safer? Or, is it just a way to put money in the pockets of school district cronies and place a band-aid on the deeper, more systemic problem?
Anyone who works in a school knows that the problem of school violence is incredibly complex. Almost no student comes to school wanting to wreak havoc and hurt other people. They do come to school, however, very angry and sometimes bewildered with the circumstances of their own lives that are out of their control. Kids act out in school because it is a safe place to do so. Cameras do exactly NOTHING to help these situations. What does help is creating a climate of safely, accountability, and acceptance for all our students. What helps create this climate? Good administrators who are not running in fear from an autocratic leader, stable school staff and teachers who have time to get to know their students and families, and support staff who can work with students. These things all cost money, but they are not machines that can be trotted out for the media to prove that the powers that be are truly doing something. That is not to say that cameras and other security measures are not important and helpful, but they really are only a very small part of the solution. Ensuring safe schools takes time and a schools chief who respects her people and students enough to ask them to collaboratively create good school climates and supports them in the complicated effort to do so.

The Trouble With Scripted Curricula (part I)

Well, we are in the first full week of school with the Empowerment Schools in Philadelphia using a new, heavily scripted reading curriculum. The K-6 Students are using Imagine It! and grades 7-8 are using Glencoe Literature. Arlene Ackerman is convinced (or at least she says she is) that these curricula will spur our students to new heights of learning. This system was implemented even for schools (such as mine) that achieved AYP last year. Our Reading Specialist posed an interesting question today: If we made AYP using Trophies and Elements of Literature (our former, well-regarded reading programs), WHY do we not get to keep using them?? Why are we instead using a repetitive, mind-numbing set of books that even young kids can see the flaws in? The most obvious explanation seems to be that Arlene has no faith in her teachers OR her students. Good teachers, using the core curriculum and the Pennsylvania State Standards can teach reading very well, and differentiate instruction without reading from a script. Most of us have been doing this for years--all the while providing for the differences and idiosyncrasies in our students' interests, strengths, and weaknesses. Much current reading research that has been done in challenging, urban classrooms like many of Philadelphia's, reaches the conclusion that great and successful reading instruction is cross-curricular, culturally sensitive and relevant, and makes use of students' experiences. Scripted curricula are antithetical to most of these goals and best practices--they do not engage students or give them credit for their intellect. A recent study on African-American and Latino boys' disengagement from school found that these young men need to feel they are not disrespected in order to be engaged in learning. Believe me, most of my middle grades students feel disrespected and devalued by a scripted curriculum. Students in the most impoverished neighborhoods still have thoughts and dreams and ideas that they want to read about, talk about, and write about. That reading, writing and talking IS learning, and it usually includes higher order thinking--something that scripts do not allow for. I do not believe that many parents will be in love with these scripts, either. Today, as a second grade parent stopped by a colleague's classroom to drop off his son from a medical appointment, he paused and said, "WHAT are you doing?" The teacher replied that it was the new reading curriculum and that she would explain more during back-to-school night. If his comment is any indication of the reaction of the rest of our parents, it is going to be very interesting. We are always being told that ALL students deserve their teachers to have high expectations for them--and good teachers truly believe that and try to honor it daily. It is the scripted curricula and the people who promote it that do not have enough respect for and belief in our students to trust that they can learn without being condescended to.

Penny Wise and Pound Foolish?

I have been spending the summer tutoring and doing professional development (and vacationing), and I have been thinking about school staffing issues. I am wondering if Dr. Ackerman's consistent hiring of more and more administration (perhaps to insulate herself) at the same time she is letting school support staff go is a wise decision. It is very easy to fire or lay off school support staff--this is mostly because, to people who do not work in schools every day, their titles and duties seem to be rather nebulous. Many people might ask what a "non-teaching assistant", or a "parent ombudsman" or a "community relations liaison" actually does. Well, they all do something vital for the life and smooth running of the school. The most well known community liaison currently may be Violet Sutton-Lawson , recently laid off from South Philly High, the woman who used her body and formidable personality to protect an Asian student from being beaten during the horrible events of December 2009. Sutton-Lawson's actions were certainly heroic, but truth be told, there are many unheralded support staff personnel in schools who work heroically with students every day. Sutton-Lawson's work with pregnant teens has probably helped many of them stay in school--kids can't get an education if they do not attend school and feel safe while they are there. Support staff can listen to, protect, advise, and help discipline students every day. Non-teaching support staff help make the smooth and safe running of schools possible. Many non-teaching assistants (NTAs) help keep order in large school hallways and other common areas, and they also give students another adult in the building who can support and mentor them. That kind of support and continuity is invaluable to all students, but especially to those who come from deprived circumstances.
In my K-8 school this year, our parent ombudsman and student advisor were crucial in helping the teachers and counselor help get a student removed from an unsafe situation at home and put with a relative who could give the student proper care. Our support staff was able to arrange appointments, follow up on phone calls and inquiries, and do home visits and gather data that teachers just do not have time to obtain. Because these two people did their jobs well, we were able to work together to turn this student from a child with 3 absences per week into one who attended school every day. If we did not have these two people in our school to help teachers and counselors, it would have taken us much longer to help this child. Stories like this one may not seem important in such a grand plan as Ackerman's Imagine 2014, but it is the thousands of small successes that support staff help us with that will help make the plan come to fruition.
I suppose Arlene would say she is saving money with all these cuts of crucial school personnel, but a beginning NTA makes just over $19,000.00 per year, and the top salary is a little over $39,000.00 per year. In a 3.2 BILLION dollar budget, the pay for these important positions hardly seems excessive. However, Arlene would rather keep hiring administrative staff at salaries of about $180,000.00 per year (yes, SIX figures), than keep students safe and cared for and her actual schools running well. I know that any teacher, principal, or student I talk to has a very clear idea about the great value of our support staff, what we are not very clear on is what a six figure salaried "chief" or "communications officer" sitting at 440 North Broad Street (SDP headquarters) actually does to make the lives and education of our students better each and every day.
+++Update: More administrative positions, more SIX figure salaries.
+++New Update: Arlene and her minions make more than the mayor, governor, and the superintendents of NYC, LA, and Chicago (not including bonuses). http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20100729_Phil_Goldsmith__Ackerman_and_SRC_tone-deaf_to_Philadelphia_taxpayers__financial_plight.html