When A Diploma is WORTHLESS in Every Sense of the Word

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/student_graduates_qKSEek0SoPXTJBjV1Scc0M?sms_ss=email

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/education/10schools.html?hpw

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/education/10remedial.html?hpw

As charter schools are better able to fly under the radar, they are also better able to ‘give’ away diplomas.  Since charter schools are monitored by the supporting school district, and no district has any money, charter schools are left with little to no supervision as the school district accounting and curriculum departments attempts to attend to the schools in the district accountable to their school board.  When this happens, charter schools may give out diplomas as long as students pass the requirements for graduation of that state.

 In my example, I will use CA, where I live.  A student must pass the CAHSEE to obtain a diploma.  The CAHSEE is geared to a bit above Grade 8 Algebra and maybe sophmore in high school level English. The CAHSEE is easy enough to pass when students attend school regularly and make a minimal attempt at work – it is not by any means an indicator of success in college or as an adult, rather it is the minimum benchmark of students graduating high school in California.

 A high school diploma means a student has taken certain minimum requirements of general education and it does not mean the student is ready for college. A high school diploma, in this sense is a misnomer since a student can graduate and be marginally literate in math and English.   A student can in fact meet the science, history and PE requirements by the slide through method, as long as they master the CAHSEE with a passing score. In this way, teachers can ‘divine’ a grade for students and give  ‘credits’ to graduate.

Teachers have over the years come up with many unique and interesting methods to ‘divine’ grades – it can be the manner in which they set up how students are graded, it can be allowing more group centric projects so the low performing students are buoyed by the high performing students, it can be merely obtaining grades off of standardized quizzes and tests.  These ‘divinations’ are reserved for the non-college track students as students heading to college will pursue higher level courses which require a higher degree of literacy and math skills. The students on the college prep track are more able to deal with a competitive grading situation and generally put in enough effort to pass the more intensive classes.

Students who merely need a high school diploma can in fact ‘earn’ the diploma via teachers who ‘divine’ grades.  Of course this type of grading is never discussed in polite company, would never see the light of day outside of the principals office and generally sounds something like, “What can you do to ‘pass’ student X?  from your principal.  This request by a principal means devise a short assignment basic enough in structure that a student can complete the breadth and depth of work for a semester or year class in one week and the student can be moved on.  Teachers are never asked to do this with students on the college track as they have larger hurdles to jump such as SAT, ACT, and AP courses.

Schools can and do ruthlessly hand out diplomas to anyone who marginally shows up to school so they can collect ADA and make it sound as if it is some type of accomplishment. Sadly, not all high school diplomas are the same and not equal in value, some even being worthless. When the rubber hits the road, a student who slid by on the diploma and passed the CAHSEE, will stand out from the crowd by their absolute inability to function in an adult world as they never learned persistence, study skills or how to pay attention, take notes or problem solve. 

All of this is terribly sad and saddeningly terrible to the students it happens to, believing they have a ‘diploma’ of value.  What is more disheartening as a teacher is the number of times I have personally been asked to participate in this ‘divination’ of grading – most recently by a charter school in the bay area which caters to programs for adults on parole from prison.   When I realized worthless diplomas were being milled out and the state and other non-profits were being billed for this service, I had to walk away.  As much as it is nice to offer anyone a diploma, it is even more considerate to offer a diploma of value.

Noticing how schools, most often charter schools are able to pull off this sleight of hand truly makes me curious about the integrity of education and how we define quality education.  Personally, I believe you can only have quality education when the standards you set are high enough to climb over, but not without a lot of practice on the field, a running jump and a really good coach.  Raising the bar on education will mean more than higher test scores on standardized tests which test the lowest levels of learning (multiple choice) and in so doing, it will produce diplomas of value.  Until such time, we will have a two to three tiered education system which touts itself as high quality since it produces diplomas.

Teacher Satisfaction Up? What Drugs Does Mr. Kress Take?

 

 

Job Satisfaction Among Teachers Said To Have Peaked In 2008.

 

In an opinion piece for the Dallas Morning News (4/17), Sandy Kress, an attorney and former senior adviser to President George W. Bush on No Child Left Behind, writes, “Teachers today are more satisfied, optimistic and encouraged than at any time during the last 25 years,” results of the 2008 MetLife Survey of the American Teacher show. The latest results illustrate “a picture in stark contrast to the fearful account used by some special interests for political advantage,” according Kress. For instance, “in 2008, a full six years after No Child Left Behind was signed into law, the number of teachers who were ‘very satisfied’ with teaching as a career reached an all-time high of 62 percent. This is up from 40 percent in 1984.” In addition, 75 percent of respondents said that they likely would “advise a young person to pursue a career in teaching,” up from 45 percent in 1984.

The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, conducted by Harris Interactive since 1984, tracks the opinions and outlook of teachers, principals and students. The survey’s latest report, “Past, Present and Future,” details interviews of 1,000 teachers and 502 principals across the nation.

MetLife has no agenda in education politics. It has simply put out the facts – objectively.

Uh, let me dig out my college stats book…..something appears contrived with the stats represented in this article.  Caveat emptor!

I will begin with the obvious and work my way to obtuse. 

Were the same 1,000 teachers interviewed year over year? Was this a credible longitudinal study?  How many of the 1,000 teachers were idealist first year teachers and how many of the 1,000 teachers had made it past five years of teaching?  Do the stats hold true for inner city teachers as for urban teachers? Were any of the teachers at private schools or were they all at public schools? What grades did the 1,000 people interviewed teach?  How many of the teachers interviewed had tenure? Where were the 1,000 teachers selected from and why such a small sample? Can this research be verified?

 One thousand teachers interviewed out of  x total teachers in America.   From 1984 to 2008, the PERCENTAGE of “very satisfied” with the career choice of teaching went from 40 to 62%  This means that anything below very satisfied (satisfied, not satisfied, extremely dissatisfied) went from 60% to 38%.   So, reframing this, anything over10% of your work force not merely hitting satisfied would be a concern.  What is the composite breakdown of the other categories? How was the percentage change calculated?

Teachers in 1984 recommended students pursue the career of eduction at a rate of 45% and in 2008, 75% advised students to pursue education.  Net change of 30%.  Sadly, 25% would not recommend pursuing a career in education – what might the reason be for that?

 Teachers who rate schools’ academic standards as “excellent” – 53 percent in 2008 from 26 percent in 1984.   That means almost 50% (47% rounded) do not view the academic standards as “excellent”.  This means about 1/2 of those interviewed believe the standards are excellent. Albeit, it is an improvement, however continuing to have about 50% who do not see something as excellent also tells you something.

Out of 1,000 teachers, 54% of the interviewed teachers report that at least 3/4 of their students more prepared for their lessons  an arrive able to tackle grade-level material. In 1992, this figure was 44 percent.  This means the perception of teachers ‘feeling’ 3/4 of their students are more prepared went up 10% points.  It also means that 46% of teachers interviewed believe LESS than 3/4 of their students are more prepared for their lessons and arrive able to tackle grade-level material.  If I round 46% up, it is almost 50%.  So, in this case approximtely 50% of teachers on either side of the issue perceive 3/4 of their students to be prepared for their work and able to tackle grade-level material….so, some where from 1/4 to who knows what number (remember, only about 54% of the teachers perceive 3/4 of their students are on target) are not……this would explain why teaching is so difficult.  I would like to add that if one were to look at API scores and the sales of programs to improve literacy, there is no way 3/4 of the students in the U.S. are adequately ready to perform at grade level.

Teachers feel better supported by their schools, with 83 percent rating the availability of teaching materials and supplies as “good” or “excellent,” up from 64 percent in 1984.   Since the teaching materials available are not listed, does this include things such as Read 180, REACH and other literacy programs? Does this include pre-packaged kits for science such as FOSS and anything from a text book company (essentially cookbooks for teaching for new teachers).  Again, looking at sales from various textbook companies and companies with scientifically proven materials, it would seem we are not seeing the high end education materials necessary for students to think beyond  PROFICIENT.  Proficient is the mark of test scores which also means a student is on grade level and does not need to be ‘pushed’ further (also, improving test scores of a student who is proficient does not make standardized test scores go up as much as a student below proficient so most materials are geared to students below proficient).  I would like to know of the teachers interviewed, how many are past their first five years of teaching which is the time period when most teachers begin to get past the kit form of delivery for teaching instruction and really get creative.

Schools’ physical facilities also garner higher marks, as 79 percent of teachers believe their schools’ facilities are “good” or “excellent’.  Again, this means 21% of teachers believe the school facilities they teach in is LESS THAN GOOD.    Are the less than good school facilities in poor communities?  Were the teachers who were interviewed  aware of what good and great facilities look like?   My own recent experience provided middle school facilities which were no where near safe nor appropriate to teach middle school science at grade level (including no fire extinguisher IN the classroom).  There are schools I have subbed in which are marginally better than the schools I taught in during Peace Corps in a third world country – and this is in the bay area, not rural communities.   Of the 20% of the schools which are not good or excellent, what is the story?  In addition,  is this an indicator that the 1,000 teachers interviewed may not have been inner city teachers?  I am not convinced LAUSD has working phones in every classroom yet.

Parental and community support has earned higher marks recently. Teachers believing support was “good” or “excellent” increased from 54 percent in 1984 to 67 percent today.  Again, the converse is 33% of teachers interviewed believe community and parental support is less than a minimum of good.  While it is up 13 percentage points, it is not indicating our communities are anywhere near on board with parental and community support of education in general.

My final comment would be this study does not indicate the parameters of the teachers interviewed, including:

Age of teachers

Years of experience

Location – inner city, urban, rural

Type of school – public, charter, private

MetLife has no agenda in education politics. It has simply put out the facts – objectively.

Without this information, this article, at best, provides low level correlation. Objective?  How about objectionable evidence for FACT….. Evidence to me that this is ‘spin’ by SandyKress as opposed to reality.  If this is an indication of how insurance companies represent factual data (this is not even an actuarial table), it may explain the skyrocketing costs of insurance – you can spin any data to your choice of interpretation.  

Mr. Kress would be well served to align himself with a major university which does educational research so his study could be more believeable.  At a minimum, I would not want a person such as himself being a senior advisor since it does not seem he adequately passed college stats – or he truly believes the American public is stupid.  With an advisor such as this, who relies on companies such as Harris Interactive for data, one leaves themselves open to all manner of scrutiny – the least of which is my opinion.

This was found on 4/22/09 

Education Week (4/22, Sawchuk) reports that “the nation’s oft-criticized systems for evaluating the quality of its educator workforce are poised to receive increased scrutiny, thanks to an Obama administration plan to require school districts to disclose how many teachers perform well or poorly.” The guidelines, issued earlier this month by the Education Department in conjunction with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, require states “to report on the number and percentage of teachers and principals scoring at each level on local districts’ evaluation instruments. States must also disclose whether the evaluation tools take student performance into account.” According to some experts, “the initiative’s success will depend on the administration’s follow-up steps — including the metrics the Education Department sets for reporting evaluation data, and what steps it expects states and districts to take with the resulting data.”

Stimulus Guidelines Require Districts To Report Teacher Performance Data.

http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/2009/06/03/060309tln_marshall.h21.html?tkn=WTUFI3g9E7qTrkw%252FwKuOYa%252F29zCdA8FrV6nY

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/business/economy/05view.html?hpw

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.