I have had my 2010 election ballot for almost a month now. I found most of the choices to be fairly easy. I have agonized, however, about one particular choice. I'd like to share my thinking with you, not to urge you to vote one way or another, but to explore the relevant issues behind my dilemma.
You have probably received endless communications at this point advocating various candidates and positions. I want to share with you not so much my advocacy of a particular candidate, as the deep ambivalence that I feel toward the choices that we voters have to make for one office, the State Superintended of Public Instruction. (The office is in Arizona, but all of the points are relevant throughout the country).
I have read the election materials of each candidate, read their election pamphlet essays, and watched them debate. While they have substantially different positions, I am absolutely convinced that neither will do anything whatever to alter the pathetic status quo in American public education.
While this is an Arizona election, the candidates are almost caricatures for the two major strains of thinking about what is wrong with American public education:
The Republican candidate, a state legislator, was an active participant in substantially reducing the level of funding for public education in the state. From this I infer that he thinks we can improve our schools with less, rather than more, resources. His position papers include all of the usual Republican canards, "high standards" and references to "English-only education." The magic pill that he and many of his ilk offer is that of charter schools. If we simply encourage private entities to create their own schools, these will compete with public schools and will solve all of our educational problems -- with no increase in resources.
The Democratic candidate is also typical of the Democratic view of most of these issues. As such, she decries any cuts in educational spending, is silent or lukewarm on charter schools and generally thinks that the answer to our educational mess is just supporting the teachers that we have -- with increases in funding. But as head of the teacher union, she held a position whose central tenant seemed to be to protect the job security of the most incompetent teacher who ever walked into the classroom without any regard for the impact on students.
I watched both of these candidates in a public debate. Superficially, each seemed articulate, intelligent and reasonable. If I didn't feel I was able to read between the lines of their positions, I might have felt that either could improve public education. When I looked beneath the surface, however, what I saw was a pair of candidates, each completely beholden to the interests of their respective constituencies. The more I thought about it, the more I was absolutely convinced that there is not the slightest chance that either would contribute in any meaningful way to improving public education.
Much has been made of the fact that American students are performing at a level near the bottom among its peers, the other industrialized nations. In looking at these discrepancies and the differences, one fact stands in stark contrast. The most successful counties pull their teachers from among the top third of college graduates, while most of our teachers are pulled from the bottom third. And both these countries and ours pay accordingly: they pay a lot more than we do. And value their teachers accordingly.
This stark fact suggests to me an obvious solution, one I am certain each of these candidates would reject out-of-hand (but for different reasons). Let's announce that in the state of Arizona, effective four years from next September we will double the salaries of all public school teachers. (I am sure the Democratic candidate would love this.) Oh, but on that date, teacher tenure would end; all current teachers would lose their jobs, but be free to compete to be re-hired for their now much higher-paying positions. (Now the Republicans cheer.) But, they would have to compete for their old jobs with a generation of recent graduates who would go through school knowing that Arizona values educators and is willing to pay them accordingly. These would include students who would otherwise consider such professions as law, medicine, biosciences or engineering; the most challenging subjects that currently attract our best and brightest students. And current teachers would also have to compete with the best teachers from all over America, and perhaps the world.
And in doing this hiring, I would favor persons who had excelled in the subject matter which they teach, rather than education. The dirty little secret is that education is the easiest subject in which to major in every college and university of which I am aware.
And to keep these now highly-paying jobs, these newly hired teachers would have to continue to deliver. Exactly like the doctors, lawyers, engineers and scientists the best of whom are currently paid so much more. (The untold side of the lament that we pay teachers so poorly is that even the worst of them is guaranteed a paycheck for life: a paycheck equal to that received by the very best of their fellow teachers. All the highly paid professions offer NO guaranteed salary. And the worst of the lot in these esteemed professions can actually earn less than the wages we guarantee for life to all of our teachers, regardless of their performance).
Is this the be-all and end-all of the educational reform we need? Of course not. I'll say more about the rest of the story in future missives. But I do offer this as food for thought.
In the meantime, there is actually some hope for the employment prospects for Arizona schoolchildren -- for jobs for which they will fully qualify under our current educational regime. If Russell Pearce gets his way, there will be a lot of vacancies for positions as maids and gardeners in the state.
Oh, a few minutes before writing this, I finally marked my ballot for Superintendent of Public Instruction: I cast a write-in vote for Michelle Rhee.
So you pay more and get less.
I do like the idea of paying teachers more and would support higher taxes to do it, but you'd only need like 25% more to do it. Teaching requires way less education than other professions so modest salary increases would get you many better teachers in this economy IF AND ONLY IF prospective teachers could skip most ed courses. So cut the ed course requirement in half, kill tenure and you have my vote to incese taxes to pay teachers more.
RCC
As a teacher and principal (recently retired) in Arizona, I had no problem with AEA. The reps major role was to make sure that administrators were providing due process when firing teachers. Due process is a good thing. Without representation, these mediocre or poor teachers would not have known their rights. I never had a problem with that.
The Arizona Legislature has virtually eliminated tenure, so it's not the problem you mention in your post. Your suggestion to significantly raise teachers' salaries in order to attract the best college graduates is good -- so let's do it. However, just because a college student majors in education does not mean that he or she is not bright. For many teachers, teaching is a calling. It's not their fault that education classes are boring and trite.
The main problem with our education system today is No Child Left Behind. Because of it, teachers are leaving the profession, and college students will no longer choose it as a major.
www.inthetrencheswithschoolreform.com
theschoolprincipal@inthetrencheswithschoolreform.com
Although I originally wrote this article in response to a Kyle Wingfield column appearing in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on September 24, 2010, I find it is an appropriate response to Michael J. O'Neil’s “Education Reform and the 2010 Election: Two Lousy Choices.â€
On September 14th, Washington DC’s largely African American voters ended the sovereignty of Mayor Adrian Fenty and were most optimistic about the impending departure of Michelle Rhee. Everywhere, reporters, pundits, talk-show hosts and bloggers who often inundate TV segments, print media and the Internet with information so far from the truth, stated repeatedly: Black D.C. residents kicked out a mayor who, along with schools chancellor, Michelle Rhee, was making the first serious difference in decades in the city's notoriously decrepit school system.
Although the public has widely accepted the idea that Michelle Rhee’s methods have radically improved DC Public Schools, there are very good reasons to believe this is not so.
As one DC reporter put it, “It's truth-telling time.â€
In the fall of 2008, having just completed her first year on the job, District of Columbia Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee was confronted with a major cheating scandal. An erasure analysis report from CTB McGraw-Hill, the publisher of the District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC-CAS), detected a high number of erasures. Then DC State Superintendent of Education, Deborah A. Gist, ordered the analysis after noticing sizeable gains in student reading and writing proficiency rates at some schools.
Forty-five of 150 DC public schools (almost a third of all DC schools) had at least one classroom with an elevated erasure level in 2008; the data showed that suspicious erasures were most heavily concentrated in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th-grade classrooms at a half-dozen schools. (Washington Post)
Gist submitted a list of 26 schools with proficiency gains of 20 percent or more to Chancellor Michelle Rhee. The report indicated statistically remarkable improvements in test scores at the following schools: Aiton, Hearst, Raymond, Thomas, Hendley, Garrison, Maury, Reed, Draper, Powell, Bowen, Young, Cleveland, Winston Education Center, Sharpe Health School and Mamie D. Lee School.
Several schools on the list demonstrated gains in test scores by 40, 50 and nearly 60 percentage points. Aiton Elementary School’s test scores increased in reading by nearly 30 percent and in math by more than 40 percent.
“A spreadsheet summary of the CTB McGraw-Hill study shows that Bowen Elementary in Southwest Washington was one of schools where test results improved dramatically in 2008. The percentage of children showing proficiency in reading grew by 27 points, from 36.2 to 63.2 percent. The 34 students in one class averaged more than 10 wrong-to-right erasures on the exam. The citywide average for wrong-to-right erasures on the reading test in elementary grades was between 1.4 and 2.3, according District officials.†(Washington Post)
On July 9, 2008, roughly two months prior, at Plummer Elementary School, Mayor Adrian Fenty, Chancellor Michelle Rhee and Deputy Mayor for Education Victor Reinoso announced the preliminary results of the DC Public Schools’ DCCAS. The schools on Gist’s list were heralded for their extraordinary gains in test scores.
Gist submitted a list of 26 schools with proficiency gains of 20 percent or more to Chancellor Michelle Rhee. The report indicated statistically remarkable improvements in test scores at the following schools: Aiton, Hearst, Raymond, Thomas, Hendley, Garrison, Maury, Reed, Draper, Powell, Bowen, Young, Cleveland, Winston Education Center, Sharpe Health School and Mamie D. Lee School.
Several schools on the list demonstrated gains in test scores by 40, 50 and nearly 60 percentage points. Aiton Elementary School’s test scores increased in reading by nearly 30 percent and in math by more than 40 percent.
“A spreadsheet summary of the CTB McGraw-Hill study shows that Bowen Elementary in Southwest Washington was one of schools where test results improved dramatically in 2008. The percentage of children showing proficiency in reading grew by 27 points, from 36.2 to 63.2 percent. The 34 students in one class averaged more than 10 wrong-to-right erasures on the exam. The citywide average for wrong-to-right erasures on the reading test in elementary grades was between 1.4 and 2.3, according District officials.†(Washington Post)
On July 9, 2008, roughly two months prior, at Plummer Elementary School, Mayor Adrian Fenty, Chancellor Michelle Rhee and Deputy Mayor for Education Victor Reinoso announced the preliminary results of the DC Public Schools’ DCCAS. The schools on Gist’s list were heralded for their extraordinary gains in test scores.
However, Sharpe Health School and Mamie D. Lee School demonstrated the largest and most impressive test score gains during the 2007/2008 school year; the two schools netted gains in the 50 to 60 percent range. This feat was most remarkable given that both schools are self-contained special education schools serving students with moderate to severe physical and cognitive disabilities including:
 Mental Retardation
 Learning Disabilities
 Speech or Language Impairment
 Traumatic Brain Injury
 Autism
 Emotional Disabilities
 Visual Impairment
 Hearing Impairment
 Orthopedic Disabilities
 Severe Multiple Disabilities
 Other Health Impairments
 Severe Orthopedic Impairment
Amazingly, Mamie D. Lee posted the exact rate of student proficiency, 88.89%, in both reading and math.
On November 20, 2008, in a memo to Chancellor Michelle Rhee, Gist said the data did not automatically point to cheating. "There are many reasons that a class could have more erasures than other classes," she wrote. But to guarantee the validity of the scores, Gist asked Rhee to "please take the appropriate steps to investigate the results enclosed and provide a report within 60 days.†(Washington Post)
Unlike the recent cheating scandal in Atlanta Public Schools, no semblance of an independent or in-depth investigation was ever conducted, albeit test anomalies could have indicated wide-spread cheating or at the very least, breaches in testing security protocols. Chancellor Rhee did not think it was necessary. Chancellor Rhee said: "Given that the people who actually developed the test said that it was inconclusive, we just didn't think it was necessary to investigate possible cheating.†(Washington Post)
On Monday, September 7, 2009, Washington Post staff writer Bill Turque wrote:
“Despite two requests from the District's Office of the State Superintendent of Education, D.C. public school officials never provided evidence that they investigated possible cheating at some schools after an analysis showed high rates of erasures on standardized tests in 2008, according to newly released documents.â€
The entire state of affairs begs the question: why.
Why did the high number of erasures on the DC CAS not merit further investigation? Why did Chancellor Michelle Rhee, a “data-focused decision maker†and certainly no fan of DC Public School teachers, squash an investigation that could have supported her in weeding out poor performing and corrupt teachers and administrators? Given that standardized test data are the driving force behind her testing and accountability reform initiative that links student performance to teacher performance and pay, shouldn’t Chancellor Rhee have acted vigilantly to ensure the integrity of the data?
Would a deeper look into the extraordinary increases in DC Public Schools’ student test scores have uncovered innovation and genuine success or a culture of brazen deception, cheating and intimidation, which only serves to deepen the crises of DC’s poor and minority children who have the greatest need for educational opportunity?
Chancellor Rhee said that the student test score gains demonstrated that the approaches she used during her first year in office were working. Mayor Adrian Fenty praised Chancellor Rhee for bringing about the miraculous rise in test scores. Though, Mayor Fenty credited Rhee for the 11% increase in student test scores, the largest gain in the nation, Chancellor Rhee implemented NO academic initiatives during the 2007/2008 school year.
Obviously, a little bit of cheating goes a long way in Michelle Rhee’s version of school reform; moreover, a whole lot of cheating can thrust you into the spotlight as the “it girl†for education reform in America, backed by conservative think tanks and billionaire philanthropists like Bill Gates, Eli Broad and the Walton Family Foundation. You might even get cast as a heroic pioneer in Davis Guggenheim's “Waiting for Superman,†a rousing propaganda film designed to proselytize American people.
Guggenheim's film suggests that the problem with public education is that tenure protects bad teachers and unions protect tenure. It is pure political fabrication that teacher tenure rules make it impossible to get rid of poor teachers.
A study conducted by the New Teacher Project, the organization that Michelle Rhee herself created and served as its chief executive officer and president just prior to joining DC Public Schools, clearly indicates that the difficulty in removing ineffective teachers has much more to do with poorly trained administrators who have few skills and inadequate tools to distinguish between excellent, average, and poor teaching.
Michelle Rhee, for certain, is not “the warrior woman for our time†as described by Oprah Winfrey; Rhee is just another example of the maxim “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.â€
During Mayor Fenty’s administration, the mayoral take-over of DC Public Schools had all key players at both state and local education agencies appointed by or reporting to the mayor including: then DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, then DC State Superintendent of Education Keri Briggs (Deborah Gist's replacement) and Deputy Mayor for Education, Victor Reinoso. They functioned as enlightened despots who held absolute power over the school system. There was no system of checks and balances that would have given school administrators, teachers, parents and community members a voice into issues that directly impacted them and the District’s children.
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
Below is a timeline of events that, with the exception of the DCPS press release on July 9, 2008, was developed and even excerpted exclusively from a series of articles from The Washington Post:
 July 9, 2008, DCPS PRESS RELEASE District of Columbia Public Schools See Significant Gains in DC CAS Scores WASHINGTON, DC
Today at Plummer Elementary School, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Chancellor Michelle Rhee and Deputy Mayor for Education Victor Reinoso announced the preliminary results of the District of Columbia Public Schools’ (DCPS) DC Comprehensive Assessment System (DCCAS), an annual assessment that determines whether schools met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as required by the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act.
DCPS Reading & Mathematics Proficiency
Preliminary results show that both elementary and secondary schools achieved significant gains in reading and math proficiency, compared to past years. Elementary schools scored 46 percent proficient in reading, up 8 points from last year. With a score of 40 percent proficient in math, elementary schools saw an 11-point gain. Secondary schools received 39 percent proficient in reading, a 9-point increase compared to 2007; and 36 percent proficient in math, also a 9-point gain.
According to Chancellor Rhee, “These are strong initial gains for the administration’s first year. Our students performed incredibly well and this is only the beginning. As we continue to make decisions in the best interest of kids, we will continue to see academic strength and growth.â€
 August/September 2008 (Washington Post does not specify)
A little more than a year after her appointment as Chancellor of District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), Michelle Rhee had before her “erasure analysis" information from CTB McGraw-Hill, publisher of the District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC-CAS).
Deborah A. Gist, the State Superintendent of Education for the District of Columbia (OSSE), ordered the analysis in August 2008 after noticing sizeable gains in student reading and writing proficiency rates at some schools.
Forty-five of 150 DC public schools (approximately a third of all DC schools) had at least one classroom with an elevated erasure level in 2008; the data shows that suspicious erasures were most heavily concentrated in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th-grade classrooms at a half-dozen schools with 573 students.
o Gist's request also included a list of 26 schools with proficiency gains of 20 percent or more.
o “According to 2008 District test results, the list Gist submitted included Aiton, Hearst, Raymond, Thomas, Hendley, Garrison, Maury, Reed, Draper, Powell, Bowen, Young and Cleveland public elementary schools, along with Winston Education Center, Sharpe Health School and Mamie D. Lee School, which are also public schools.†(The Washington Post)
 November 20, 2008
In a memo to Rhee, Gist said the data did not automatically point to cheating. "There are many reasons that a class could have more erasures than other classes," she wrote.
o But to guarantee the validity of the scores, Gist asked Rhee to "please take the appropriate steps to investigate the results enclosed and provide a report within 60 days.â€
o Gist made the same request of 13 charter schools -- which are publicly financed but independently operated -- that had an elevated number of erasures. Records show that just six responded with accounts of internal inquiries, none of which turned up evidence of cheating.
 January 7, 2009
Rhee's office asked the superintendent's office for an extension of the 60-day period to Feb. 28. Erin McGoldrick, Rhee's chief of data and accountability, said that "in light of the high volume of classrooms with statistically aberrant erasure rates" she needed the extra time "to provide what we believe will be the most thorough possible response."
 February. 28, 2009
McGoldrick wrote again to Gist's office, reporting that none of the schools in question had been investigated. She asked for additional information about the methodology used to derive the erasure rates.
o She also asked to review student answer sheets. McGoldrick explained that "given the disruption and alarm an investigation would likely create at schools, [District public schools] must ensure that appropriate due diligence has been performed to maximize the quality of the information provided and minimize the risk of creating unfounded concern at school sites."
 March 2009
 The research scientist who led the McGraw-Hill study, Steve Ferrara, in a March 2009 memo, does not elaborate on the findings, but recommended that Gist "not draw conclusions about cheating behavior on the basis of these analyses."
o A follow-up study, conducted by another firm, led to "divergent data," according to a statement by Deputy Mayor for Education Victor Reinoso.
 April 1, 2009
Gist announced her resignation.
o Her deputy, Alex Harris, wrote to McGoldrick again asking for a follow-up investigation.
o Noting that the 2009 DC-CAS testing period would begin later that month, he provided a slimmed-down list of 11 schools that "would be the ones to prioritize for on-site investigation and follow-through." Those schools are Bruce-Monroe, J.O. Wilson, C.W. Harris, Bowen and Draper elementary schools; Takoma, Langdon, Marshall and Winston education campuses; Shaw Junior High; and Coolidge Senior High.
o The superintendent's office does not have authority over school operations, but it oversees administration of the DC-CAS and has the power to invalidate student scores and to fine schools if it determines that test security has been compromised. It relies on the schools themselves to report evidence of cheating.