Now is the time to ensure effective teaching for all children
by Eric Braxton on Sep 18 2009
From the A Thousand for Teaching Quality and Equity in Philadelphia! Facebook page. Join the campaign today.
One of the largest problems facing Philadelphia’s public schools is the inequitable distribution of qualified teachers. While some gains have been made in recent years, high poverty schools continue to have the least experienced teachers and the most staff turnover. We will not be able to resolve the achievement gap until we can ensure that qualified teachers go to the students that need them most.
The teachers' contract determines some (not all) of how teachers are distributed. Every four years, the School District and Philadelphia Federation of Teachers negotiate a new contract, but there has been little room for the students, parents, and community members, who are also greatly impacted by that contract, to influence the process.
Over the last several months, a number of organizations in Philadelphia have come together to try to do just that. The Effective Teaching Campaign’s goals are to ensure that every child has an effective teacher and that every school has a stable workforce. The Campaign is calling for four critical policy changes in the next contract: School-based hiring practices, better incentives to draw teachers to hard-to-staff schools, enhanced standards and fair evaluation procedures, and better teacher development programs. The full Teaching Quality and Equity Platform can be found at www.phillytqe.org.
I have variously heard people accuse the Effective Teaching Campaign of being too much on the side of the PFT or the School District. I don’t think the Campaign has sided with either group, but rather has staked out a middle position designed to ensure that all children get the teachers they need. For example, while the Campaign supports the District in the need for school-based hiring, it supports the union in the idea that this must be done in a democratic way that empowers teachers.
The Campaign has been collecting postcards calling for change, which it will be delivering to the Mayor, Dr. Ackerman, and Jerry Jordan. In addition, there is an electronic petition that people can sign.
While this is a crucial problem, it is not simple. We cannot just force teachers to teach at hard to staff schools. As many teachers point out, the real solution is to improve conditions in those schools so that teachers will want to go there. The Effective Teaching Campaign has tried to find ways to do that. Fifty-five years after Brown vs. Board of Education it is past time we do something about equity in our schools, and this is one important way to do that. I hope we can all get past finger pointing and do what needs to be done.
Comments (19)
Submitted by Alan Kaman (not verified) on Sun, 09/20/2009 - 07:52.
I visited the website you mentioned and found this.
Two imperatives guide this platform:
Every child deserves an effective teacher.
Every school needs a stable workforce of effective teachers.
We believe that in order to translate these basic imperatives into reality, the District must do the following:
1. Distribute experienced and effective teachers equitably across the District.
2. Create performance standards for teachers and principals that are aligned with student success, and implement them consistently district-wide.
3. Create an effective professional development strategy that is guided by teacher input and creates a "culture of collaboration" in schools.
4. Give school leaders the tools & resources to hire and create teams of effective teachers.
5. Create a "deep bench" of applicants for teaching positions.
6. Open school with NO teacher vacancies.
Your imperatives are fine, but your methodology is flawed.
1. Teachers in schools for long periods of times become part of the neighborhood. They stay at these schools because they are satisfied with their effectiveness. Children in schools look forward to having these established teachers. Your proposal will exacerbate the problem, not solve it.
2. Please, the school district already has this and they have done it badly. Totally misunderstanding what it was they were supposed to do. See September’s issue of Phi Delta Kappan and you’ll see exactly what I am referring to.
3. Forget merit pay. Bring in the Visiting Nurses program to work with families at risk. This has been especially effective for female students. Start young. Train parents as the Harlem Children's Zone does. The academic achievement gap starts at home. That's where the remedies must start.
4. Please, all I’ve seen is principals who become threatened by effective teams and then seek to disband them. Today’s principal seems threatened by an empowered teacher.
5. & 6. We may all want this but when you have a CEO who treats teachers as if they are evil fiends, you have little chance of attracting a deep bench and/or opening schools with no vacancies.
Submitted by Eric Braxton on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 13:05.
Alan, Here are my responses to your objections. I think some of them are based on misunderstandings.
1) I am not sure what you think will exacerbate the problem or how. We are not proposing forced transfers. What we are saying is that something needs to be done so that the students who need them most get effective teachers. Are you suggesting that we do nothing about this serious problem?
2) Your point is exactly our point. The District's system for evaluating teachers and principals needs to be revised. Are you suggesting that because they have done this badly in the past we should not try to fix it? Currently when teachers are evaluated, they are found either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, up or down, no detail. We are saying that there needs to be a much more sophisticated way to evaluate teachers and principals and that it needs to be based on multiple measures (not just test scores).
3) We are not supporting merit pay. I'm not sure where you got that. What we are saying is that there needs to be better professional development and that teachers need to have input in it. Are you opposing that? Involving parents is also good, but so is improving training and support for teachers. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
4) I think you are right that some principals are threatened by empowered teachers and that that is something that needs to be addressed. That's what we are saying.
5 and 6) I think we are in aggreement something needs to be done to ensure no vacancies. What are you disagreeing with?
One of the challenges with doing this is that everyone in this system feels to under attack when you make an attempt to change anything. People often look at the solutions and feel like they are being blamed. I think this platform has done a good job of finding solutions that empower people not blame them.
Submitted by Alan Kaman (not verified) on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 05:37.
2. we may agree but your campaign has said it so that it points at teachers not the district. Please, for many reasons, read this month's Kappan. I believe the PFT has already agreed to revised form of evaluation anyway.
5&6 Apparently I am not disagreeing but the district remains as much the problem in this as the union, perhaps even more so.
This is an era of teacher bashing and the tone I have seen here, even the title exacerbates this problem. apparently you wish to see the district engage in distributive leadership and on their web page Dr. Ackerman touts that philosophy. Sadly, she is as the Inquirer guest editorial pointed out, she is completely autocratic.
Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/20/2009 - 08:43.
The most erroneous phrase in education today is, "strong principal." It must be replaced by effective principal. That requires teamwork, not dictatorial powers. Karen Chenowith, a senior writer at the Education Trust recently wrote, "By acting as a team all the energy and expertise of the faculty and staff are concentrated rather than disbursed and can have a much bigger effect than is possible with the tradition of teacher isolation. That concentrated effort allows students-even students burdened by poverty and discrimination-to learn at much higher levels than has traditionally been expected."
She presents research findings demonstrating teamwork where faculty and administration work together dramatically improves test scores.
From what I have seen this academic year, this district is quickly and profoundly moving away from a distributive leadership model. It has been made clear that teachers are to be dis-empowered.
This district is moving 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/20/2009 - 17:58.
Somebody please explain to me how site-selection will make schools better? It will make the best schools better, as they are able to hire the best teachers. However, it will hurt even more, the low performing schools. Why the heck would a good teacher apply to be at a poor school? Explain please. Even if they do to start out their career, in a few years, they will bolt for the better schools.
Submitted by Keith Newman (not verified) on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 06:13.
About Site Selection
I have 15 years experience, was a teacher of the year nominee, hold three certifications, and on one of those praxis’s scored less than 5% away from perfect. I imagine I am a marketable commodity.
In a district where almost 50% of teachers quit within 5 years, who will take a chance on a young teacher, especially a young female teacher who might marry, become pregnant, and require long term leave?
It is hard to imagine a site selection program creating solutions equal to the desires of those promoting it as a panacea.
If the district wants to attract and retain good teachers it can stop brow beating them and truly offer a supportive environment to work in. I also read Phi Delta Kappan as the commentator above did. Dr. Marzano, the father of the walkthrough, might have just sent that article as a letter directly to the School District of Philadelphia. Hopefully it produces the change we need.
Submitted by Eric Braxton on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 13:15.
No one is suggesting that site selection by itself will solve all of these problems. The point here is that it is one item in a menu of solutions that work together. It is true that site selection will not cause teachers to apply to hard to staff schools. That is why there are other suggestions in the platform that do address those issues and are intended to improve conditions in those schools to make them places that teachers would want to go. When done right, site selection does allow a school to find teachers that are the right fit for what they are trying to do, and that can make a big difference. Just ask any business owner, non-profit director, or sports general manager how they would feel if they could not select their team. I should note that we are suggesting that an elected group of teachers be part of the process so that all the power is not just in the principal's hands.
Submitted by Erika Owens on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 13:22.
Woah. Not sure if you're playing Devil's Advocate here or what, but let's not, even for the sake of argument, perpetuate the idea of young women being unreliable babymakers. I think the issue about hiring managers (principals) making decisions about things other than merit is a really important one, and things like involving teachers in the decisionmaking process seem like a great way to mitigate that issue.
Submitted by Keith Newman (not verified) on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 14:50.
In response to Erika let me point out that I am not perpetuating the idea of young women being unreliable baby makers. I can tell you I first hand have heard principals take that into consideration. I can also tell you that I personally knew a pregnant teacher having a difficult pregnancy, and she had to go to her union for protection .
The unions stance on site selection has been under attack. Please remember it was the union that assured men and women received the same pay for the same work. It was the union that insured Blacks and Whites could work together side by side, teach each others children, and receive equal pay and benefits with equal opportunity for advancement.
Many have not researched the history of why the union maintains certain positions. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history.
Before the PFT is made to be the fall guy, maybe folks should research all the good the PFT's stubborness has accomplished. Much of what we take for granted as common sense approaches to effective schools came about because of the union.
The district blamed the union for the district not being able to hire on time and adequately staff schools when they opened. Dr. Ackerman to her credit proved this year that those belief's were unfounded. What other fallacies has the district engaged in in their attempt to weaken the union?
Submitted by Erika Owens on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 15:37.
Nobody is demonizing the union. These changes can take place with union support. Ron Whitehorne has been blogging about the active role that the union can take, and has taken, in improving Philly schools. Even AFT President Randi Weingarten is calling for unions to take risks and try new things. The suggestions laid out in this campaign and the goals of the union are not mutually exclusive.
Submitted by Eric Braxton on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 18:23.
I just want to point out that no one here is attacking the union. I love unions and support them for all workers including teachers. This discussion is not about whether unions are good or bad. We all agree they are good. This discussion is about how we deal with the inequitable distribution of teachers and how the union and district and community can work together to solve that problem. That is the only way it well get solved.
Submitted by Keith Newman (not verified) on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 17:23.
I wish I could agree with you Erika, but the policies I read are almost all against union positions. Please understand, just as a business has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, the union has a fiduciary duty to its members. Examine this proposal from website Erik linked to.
"Use actual teacher salaries, not averages, in developing school budgets. The District currently uses average teacher salaries to create school budgets. However, some schools, especially high-need schools, have large numbers of new teachers with below-average salaries and, in effect, receive less funding. In these instances, the District must eliminate the disparity caused by the difference between average and actual teacher salaries. This can be accomplished by a) using actual teacher salaries in school budgets; OR b) allocating to schools with more new teachers, funding equal to the difference between the actual salaries of their teachers and the District’s average salaries. The additional funds would be used by the leadership team at each school to improve the working environment and attract other experienced, effective teachers to their school. The leadership team could choose from a menu of research-based options developed by the central administration, including additional teachers, coaches, mentors, social service supports, common planning time, materials and supplies, or other needs. School-based decisions would maximize staff ownership of any intervention. "
While I applaud some of this, what happens to senior career teachers whose principals might be tempted to say, oh this ones senior career, that's costing me money I could use for programs, I better get rid of him/her.
Unless there is something I misunderstand here, that will happen.
To be fair, I hope I misunderstood this. If I do understand it correctly, it means children are denied services and teachers must teach and children must learn in non-supportive environments because they have experienced teachers. Experienced teachers earn more money and thus less is left over for meaningful programs.
Wouldn't it be a novel idea to look at the reading level of the students and provide the necessary services that students need regardless of teacher salary levels? Do people really believe that experienced teachers can accomplish more with fewer services?
This proposal as I read it is neither teacher friendly nor student friendly.
I look forward to your response and truly hope I have misunderstood it.
Submitted by Eric Braxton on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 18:36.
Keith,
There is a real difference between union bashing and taking a position that is different from the union. It is unfair to accuse people of being anti-union because they take a different position on some issues. We have been discussing what to do about equitable distribution of qualified teachers. Changing the subject to be about whether unions are good or bad is deflecting from the issue at hand and frankly we all agree that unions are good.
On your point about actual vs. average teacher salaries. I think you raise some good points that need to be looked into. The platform only suggests that as one of several ways to address this problem. While I understand your concerns, i was want to point out that because some schools have more expereiced teachers who make more money, in essence some schools spend nearly twice as much on instruction than other schools. If we are to improve conditions in low performing schools there needs to be some way of rectifying that.
Submitted by Keith Newman (not verified) on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 05:59.
It will take good policy to correct this difficulty. Bad policies will exacerbate it. The current policy being promoted by the effective teaching campaign is bad policy.
Look at what teachers need to be effective and this problem will go away: small classes, interventions for children at risk and their families, Read 180, extra curricular activities. Build a foundation for success within the child. As Arthur Ellis said, schools are about learning. Please promote an environment where learning can be advanced.
Blaming the union on this for reticence masks real solutions.
Submitted by Eric Braxton on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 11:34.
WE ARE NOT BLAMING THE UNION. If anytime anyone proposes a new idea, the people accuse them of blaming the union and refuse to discuss the actual issue, then there are some real obstacles to making change. Nowhere in the Platform does it blame the union. It amost seems like some people are determined to be attacked even when no one is attacking them. I have great repect for unions. Lets talk about the issues.
On your point that what needs to be done is to improve conditions in schools so that teachers wnt to be there. That is EXACTLY what the platform is proposing. It seems like some people are so determined to make themselves out to be the victims that they are not paying attention to what is in the platform. We agree that improving conditions in hard to staff schools is the real work that needs to be done. If you address the fact that schools with more expereicesd teachers in effect spend much more money on instruction, you could rectify that by giving schools with newer staffs additional dollars to reduce class size and do other things that would improve conditions so that teachers would want to do there. You may be right that actually switching the budgeting process to use actual salaries is not the best way to do that. The platform only proposes that as one of several possible ways to address this inequity. The post cards sent to the mayor say nothing about using actual rather than average salaries.
The effective teaching campaign is not blaming teachers. It is saying that the system doesn't work and there are things that the union and district (BOTH) must do to fix it.
Submitted by Keith Newman (not verified) on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 21:09.
Erik:
I guess I did insinuate there is union bashing going on here and I apologize for that. But I believe it is important to recognize the union has legitimate reasons for their positions.
I think we both agree now that the effective schools campaign position on using average salaries to create effective teaching is untenable.
The union cannot trust to good intentions. It must have a contract that demonstrates respect for its members. As we see here there are problems with both site selection and teacher equity. We all have good intentions but the road to.........
We need to change the approach from effective teaching to effective schools. Effective Teaching as a campaign alleges that teachers are not effective. I can tell you that hurts. While I am not the PFT I think most teachers would agree that the school district is the biggest obstacle to effective teaching. If the focus of this campaign were to expand in scope we might create effective change. For one we can build enforceable distributive leadership into this contract instead of just giving it lip service..
Submitted by Philly High School teacher (not verified) on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 21:23.
It may be worth looking at neighborhood schools, especially neighborhood high schools, which have a fairly stable staff. (I do not mean Northeast and Washington which, while neighborhood, have embedded magnet programs and historically have had veteran staffs. They are also located in more "stable," and adjacent to affluent, neighborhoods compared to, for example, Southern and Germantown). What keeps teachers at a school more than a few years? Is it more than location (e.g. which school is the closest to their home)? Why do some schools have teachers who outlive administrations? I assume part of it is shared leadership ("distributive leadership" is the latest jargon) and a sense of opportunity in and outside the classroom. In "empowerment schools," the empowerment is not in the hands of the school staff but "downtown" - possibly leading to the opposite effect of attracting experienced teachers.
Ideally, a school needs not only veteran teachers but also a mix of experiences (in and out of schools). I have found some schools, especially the new small high schools, tend to avoid veteran teachers. (Some administrators want teachers who don't know their contractual rights and are able to work many hours because they don't have the family obligations that often come with "aging.") So, site selection works both ways.
That said, it will take more than site selection to change the pattern of inequitable distribution of qualified teachers. How many teachers at Masterman, Central, CAPA, SLA, Bodine, Carver, Academies at Palumbo and Rush, etc. will give up their positions to teach at Olney West/East, Kensington 1, 2 or 3, Southern, etc. I doubt too many. That said, because they teach at a magnet school does not mean the teacher in any way is better prepared NOR able to teach in a much more difficult setting. In general, I think most Masterman teachers would be overwhelmed at a neighborhood school and the pattern of teacher turnover would not change. It takes not only experience but special qualities to be an outstanding teacher in a neighborhood high school in a school district with entrenched tracking of students by ability, demeanor / conduct, attendance, resources, etc.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 22:43.
The PFT is a notoriously regressive union. When you try to sit down with them and build a relationship, they smile in your face and talk behind your back. When you talk to them about their own self-interest and try to find common ground, they completely reject it. Quite frankly, PFT leadership is only fighting for the veteran teachers who've been in the system and gained seniority. Many of the younger and more progressive teachers realize that the PFT leadership does not actually fight for them or represent their interests. Teachers in other parts of the country and all around the world recognize that what is in student's best interests is also in their best interests. In Philadelphia that is merely lip service from the PFT leadership. This is not a forward-thinking union. This is the unfortunate climate we are dealing with.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 10/03/2009 - 08:43.
Hmmm... Many of you have very valid, reasonable points. I have been teaching in Philadelphia for the past 16 years and I'm tired. Tired, overwhelmed and over worked. One of the main reasons teachers quit is because they just can teach anymore. PSSA, Terra Nova, Benchmarks, Predictive Test, Gates, DRA, WRAP, etc. We spend so much time testing, there is little time left to teach. Children do not learn from taking standardized tests!!! Do you think a child takes a standardize test seriously when he/she has been given 6 of them? Do you really think that all of those tests are accurate? Along with the standardize testing comes paper work. Paper work from the city, state, principal.......There has to be an end somewhere and for most teachers, the end is quitting. There is no 40 hr. work week for teachers. We spend nights, weekends, holidays, prep time and lunchtime working. The powers that be think reorganizing schools, changing testing procedures, changing test forms, and giving more predictive tests will help our children. I know none of it works. Give us the time to teach. Give one or two standardized test to monitor student progress. Perhaps if the SDP let teachers do what they hired them to do, they wouldn't lose so many.
Post new comment