Starr vs. Weast: The line in the sand

Joshua Starr, the new superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools, seems to get it.     From the Gazette:

I’m struck by how outcomes-based the organization has been — and I am a believer in outcomes. You have to be accountable and responsible for outcomes. I learned after a few months that there was an orientation toward: Get the result. The shift that I am trying to make is to have the conversation about how we are getting the result. I still expect the result. In fact, I want a better result. ... So it goes back to how do we do it. ... If we orient ourselves to what do we do every day... to make sure that our kids are fully engaged in high quality instruction, what does that mean with our daily work, with teachers, with principals, with kids? And that is the change. I am not big into initiatives. I am not big into naming things and rolling out the banner and saying here is the big thing we are going to do now. It just doesn’t work. What works is having great instructional leaders leading in every building, having good curriculum and professional development and helping teachers and other folks in the system get better at what they do every day with the kids. That is what works...

This is the ideology behind real progress.   Almost makes me wish I still taught in Montgomery County.

A sophisticated decision: MCPS creates record SAT scores

The message in 2009 was much more sophisticated than in 2003.  This time, principals would not be asked how they could decrease participation on the SAT in order to raise the averages.  This time, MCPS would just ask a simple question:  "which test is best for you?"      It was so benign, yet so brilliant.   Have a meeting with the administration of every high school, and ask them to communicate to parents and students that they had a choice:  take the ACT or the SAT.   Just use criteria like the one below to help students make their decision:SAT ACT Comparison Checklist

Nothing to it.  This SAT/ACT action plan would then be "customized to meet the needs of individual schools."

Clarksburg High School created a page.

Walter Johnson had a page.

Northwood did this.

Damascus High School made a Power Point.

The plan was perfect.  In 2010, twenty-four of twenty five high schools in Montgomery County saw their percentage of SAT test takers drop.  Participation dropped, average scores rose, and Dr. Weast could continue to promote the MCPS brand name while building his consulting career in- get this- helping other districts use data to increase student achievement.

Want to know what is wrong with our educational system?   Folks- MCPS is a national model for its use of data.   But no one cares about what the data is designed to measure.   We just care about moving the data- which is no way to run an educational system.

An SAT meeting with results that matter

Dr. Jerry Weast likely learned a very important lesson in 2003.   Messaging is important.    By 2009 the message was far more refined, but the results would be no less contrived.  Every high school in Montgomery County would be invited to attend "Leadership Training" on the SAT, ACT, and Accuplacer tests- the three college placement exams.   What would go on at this meeting?  It would  certainly not be a repeat of 2003.

SAT ACT Accuplacer Confirmation


However, the results would be instantaneous, and just in time for Jerry Weast's retirement.   The year after the "Leadership Training" in 2009, 483 fewer students in Montgomery County Public Schools would take the SAT.  Of those 483 students, a disproportionate number would be minority students.   Hispanic participation would drop by 18% in 2010, African American participation would drop by 12%, while white participation would drop by a relatively modest 4%.

 The MCPS Office of Shared Accountability described the decline in this way:

For the MCPS class of 2010, slight declines in SAT participation were balanced by record increases in the number of students who took the ACT in lieu of the SAT.

This was the full extent of the MCPS analysis.    There would be no discussion of the who, why, or how.  There would be no detailed analysis of the massive drop in participation.  The analysis simply claimed that the 483 student decline in SAT participation was balanced by a 267 student increase in those students who only took the ACT.    An odd balancing act to say the least.

But what remained were legitimate questions.   Were the record SAT scores in 2010 worthy of celebration?  Was it a sign that all that had been done in Montgomery County Public Schools over the tenure of Jerry Weast had finally paid dividends?  Or was it as current Board of Education member and then principal, Michael Durso, explained in 2003, a way to make it on 60 Minutes.   Sometimes, the simple answer is the more likely one.

The Montgomery County Public Schools' Fudge Factor: Record SAT scores

Fudging data is now the culture of schools across the United States.   It is not a conspiracy theory.  It is the way that districts and the principals within those districts that "honor" the data, attempt to make themselves look great.   And as a general rule of thumb, the better the"fudger," the greater the reputation that accompanies it.  Let's just take former superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools, Jerry Weast, for example, the man Jay Matthews once called one of the top ten superintendents in the country.  In 2010, the year he retired, he claimed as one of his top ten achievements as a superintendent, record SAT scores.   Of course, these SAT scores were accompanied by record drops in SAT participation.   Think this was just  an accident?   Or could this be a similar but more sophisticated version of what occurred in 2003, when a Montgomery County Public School's newspaper, Blair High School's SilverChips, reported that principals were actually told by Weast to contrive their SAT scores through participation rates:

At an Oct 2 meeting with high school principals, Weast suggested, according to Principal Phillip Gainous,that students who could not help out SAT scores [for MCPS] and were not ready to take the SATs should be discouraged from taking them," said Gainous.  

Both Principal Daniel Shea of Quince Orchard High School and Principal Michael Durso of Springbrook High School corroborated this statement. According to Shea, Weast wanted schools to *examine the level of students taking the SATs to appropriately limit exposure." The superintendent*s message was clear, said Gainous: *We were told to do it. And the expectation was that we would all go back and do it. 

Elimination of low-scoring students from the general test-taking pool will automatically boost average SAT scores, explained Durso. If we have a certain number of students not take the SATs, then we*ll be on Sixty Minutes because of our [high] scores," he claimed.  

"It's morally wrong. It's illegal," said Blair PTSA President Valerie Ervin, who works for the County Council, regarding Weast*s suggestion.

In 2010, the media picked up the the story and touted  Montgomery County's record, just the way Jerry Weast knew they would. But perhaps the record was not quite what it appeared to be on first glance.   Perhaps we were closer to what Valerie Ervin concluded- something morally wrong.

When statistics lie- MCPS and the SAT

MCPS reported more than just a record for average SAT scores in 2010.   They also reported a new record in the percentage of students earning a "college ready score."    More than 50% of test takers received a college ready score of 1650 or better on the SAT.   The Office of Shared Accountability used this data point as further proof that reforms implemented in Montgomery County were producing results.  But when compared to the percentage of graduates who scored a 1650 or higher we see something different.

We see stagnation.

So what happened?   How did MCPS raise the percentage of test takers who scored a 1650 or better without improving the percentage of graduates who scored a 1650 or better?    It seems implausible- until you consider the participation drop off that occurred.

 If (hypothetically) one were to encourage lower scoring test takers not to take the SAT, one might see the kind of data produced in 2010.   One might a series of decling SAT scores become records.   One would see more impressive gains in the groups that were encouraged not to take the SAT. Scoop out the lower performers, and the average rises.  Likewise, when lower scoring students do not take the test- the percentage of test takers who score high (say above 1650) also must go up.  The statistic that will not lie, however, is the percentage of graduates who perform well.   This weeds out flucuations in participation on the SAT. 

Let us now consider Hispanic performance on the SAT over the last five years.   Remember that MCPS reported impressive gains.  They explained the average rose in one year, by more than 50 points.  They further explained that impressive gains were made in the percentage of Hispanic test takers who scored above 1650.   The achievement gap was closing.  Yet the data below leaves serious questions.

Is Montgomery County Public Schools truly the model we have been told it is?  Or does it face some very serious problems that deserve honest and open discussion?   When I look at this data I'm reminded of a story from 2003.

More to come.

How records are made

The MCPS press release was straight to the point.  The results were nothing short of miraculous:

Students in the Montgomery County Public Schools Class of 2010 produced the district’s highest-ever composite score on the SAT and dramatically outperformed their state and national peers, according to data released today by the College Board...

...African-American and Hispanic test-takers posted the strongest gains in MCPS, improving on last year’s average composite scores by 49 and 54 points, respectively. Those increases outpaced the growth in scores for Asian students (up 21 points) and White students (up 15 points), and further narrowed the district’s racial and ethnic gap in SAT performance.

It was an exclamation point on the tenure of Superintendent Jerry Weast.   What was at one time falling SAT scores, had turned on a dime, and turned hard.   The proof was in the preverbial pudding.   The accountability department published the remarkable data.   

From: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/Class2010SAT-MCPS-MD-Nation-9-13-10-final.pdf

The achievement gap was closing on perhaps the most educationally important data point there was, the SAT.   But what was the cause?

Was it excellent teaching?   Fierce Leadership?   I was skeptical.  My search started with the discovery of the  lowest participation rate in ten years, but that would just be the beginning.   It was even more important to figure out who did not participate.   The answer I found was unfortunately, not surprising.   In statistics circles it is well known that as participation increases, averages tend to fall, and vice versa.  

Fantastic rises in achievement were accompanied by equally fantastic decreases in SAT participation.   African American and Hispanic sub-groups led the decline in particpation.   The accountability office said it this way:

Examination of trends in SAT participation and performance provide evidence that MCPS is making progress toward the strategic plan of ensuring success for every student.

I suppose I saw it differently. What I saw as a problem, MCPS saw as evidence of success. Jerry Weast was no different

Superintendent Jerry D. Weast credits the record-breaking SAT results to talented teachers, committed staff, and motivated students as well as to the reform plan implemented 11 years ago.

“We believe in high standards, high expectations and high performance,” Weast said. “We’ve followed a clear path that works and produces exceptional results for our students at every level.  These SAT scores are extraordinary and are something that our entire community should take pride in."

 The participation data was even more disconcerting when disaggregated by service group.

Records were indeed set in 2010.   I'm just not sure they were the kind of records that should be making headlines.   And if this is how "records" were made in Montgomery County- we needed to do some real and honest soul-searching.

A Stomach Churning Letter

My wife thought it was of little consequence.  

However, as I read congratulatory emails sent out to staff and watched videos celebrating Montgomery County Public Schools' record high SAT scores, my stomach churned.   "What do you expect them to do?" my wife chimed.  I suppose I took it personally.  Yes, the mean SAT in MCPS had risen to its highest level ever- but the conclusions circulated by MCPS were nothing short of complete misrepresentations.    I couldn't help but feel insulted as I read the email from Superintendent Weast to the staff:

The College Board released SAT scores for the Class of 2010 this morning and MCPS students set an all-time record. Our 2010 graduates scored an average of 1653, which is our district’s highest score since the “new SAT” was implemented in 2006 and represents a one-year increase of 38 points. MCPS graduates outscored their Maryland peers by 151 points and the nation’s 2010 graduates by 144 points. Students in all racial subgroups improved over last year, but African American and Hispanic students made the biggest gains, further narrowing the achievement gap. The best news of all is that 51% of our students scored a 1,650 or higher, meeting the 7th Key to College Readiness—again, an all-time record.


Of course, these results did not happen in one year, or even in four years. The students whose achievements are described in this report were second graders when we began working together in 1999 and made a firm commitment that we would give all students access to an outstanding education. From elementary school, through the middle grades, and into high school, you provided our students with the opportunities and support they needed to be successful. The SAT results released today are the culmination of all the work done by you and your colleagues since these students entered MCPS.

Yes, insulted.   MCPS had long told me about the importance of data.  It had long emphasized how to use that data to guide my instruction.   Yet now I was being told that the most recent "record" SAT scores were evidence of MCPS's unparalleled success.

I finally replied to my wife, "I expect them to be reflective practioners.  I expect them to have an honest dialogue about the progress of MCPS."     

I showed my wife the data that initiallly raised an eyebrow.

Math and Verbal combined SAT scores for MCPS (writing excluded)

My wife was unconvinced.

I would need to spend more time proving my point.   The achievement gap hadn't closed.  The mean SAT was no more a record than had I served as Superintendent and asked only the top 1% of students to take the SAT.   Yet Weast would tell Bethesda Magazine that this data point was one of his top ten accomplishments as Superintendent of MCPS.

It couldn't be.  It wasn't even an accomplishment.

I dangerously decided to see if I could make my wife see it my way.

What's in a name

On May 5th 2011 I received my 3rd email invitation in three months. I was cordially invited to attend a celebration of 12 years of service for outgoing Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. Jerry Weast. It was now a model of communication for which I had become all too accustomed- whether through pat-on-the-back celebratory emails or via holiday robo-calls reminding me of my dedication to the school district. The invitation was titled, “A Legacy of Excellence” and directed readers to the www.weastlegacy.com where ticket purchases could be made for $38. The invitation explained that one could also make a donation to the newly established Jerry Weast Book Project. This project would “enhance the book collections in all 131 MCPS elementary school media centers.” The books purchased would also include a bookplate indicating it was purchased by the Jerry Weast Book Project. It was a fitting end, and we could now say our “collective thank you” to the tenure of Jerry Weast. The invitation was signed, “Patricia O’Neill, Member Board of Education.”




In a vacuum, the invitation was unassuming. It was a pleasant send off for the leader of one of the largest school districts in the United States, and Dr. Weast would do it in class- establishing a small foundation as a way to say thank you to the students he served. It was an appropriate way to say good-bye.


However as a teacher who knew nothing but the Weastian way of doing business, I could not help but view the invitation an entirely different light. After ten years of teaching in Montgomery County, my mind had turned what appeared to be a simple charitable act into a self-serving marketing event. With a certain amount of guilt, I imagined thousands of book plates with the Jerry Weast name affixed- now circulating  ad finem through MCPS libraries. It had become the way things were done in Montgomery County. Of course, I was not surprised by the invitation- but my vision of the “Weast Legacy” was probably much different than what Board of Education member Patricia O’Neill imagined.


The invitation- to me- was a symbol of what had become of the Montgomery County school system; one that was more concerned with creating a perception and protecting a reputation than in instituting meaningful reforms. It was a county that meticulously gathered data about student performance. It paid special attention to those metrics that were gathered by outside organizations- Newsweek, AP Board, and Education Week to name a few. It then focused its instructional programs and decision-making on ways to move this data.


Consider for a moment- the release of the Montgomery County 2010 SAT scores. The MCPS press release read the following: “MCPS class of 2010 scores at record levels on the SAT.” When the local county Gazette picked up the results they explained “Montgomery County Public Schools students… achieved the highest average SAT score in the school system's history, while black and Hispanic students posted the biggest improvement in SAT scores.” And the Washington Post could not have been more favorable in their coverage, reporting that “Montgomery County public school students posted record-high scores of 1653, and the school system took steps to narrow the persistent achievement gap.” However, these headlines and articles often concealed facts that were less than flattering. But they were facts buried in raw data that few reporters or even educational experts had time to review. The headlines were simple and celebratory. It was news that made everyone feel good- so they were easy to accept as fact.

However when we deal with large organizations- the stakes of this type of misrepresentation- the type of misrepresentation that I will show occurred with the 2010 SAT results- are substantial.   They have large ramifications because school districts accepted as successful by their peers  serve as models for others.   When we read that Montgomery County closed the achievement gap- we conclude that the district has done something worthy of repetition.   But if these types of statements are merely window dressing- then what is copied is really of no social value.   In fact- it is a waste of valuable resources.  Unfortunately, I believe that Montgomery County Public schools has done much in the last ten years to increase their brand name- to increase their national and international reputation- but little to institute reforms worthy of the brand it created.


What may sound like an indictment of MCPS is really not.   MCPS plays by the rules and the incentives valued by our culture- they just happen to do it extremely well.   Under Weast, MCPS created a thesis and advanced it through what grew to be a ten million dollar communication and outreach budget.   And it was a thesis which united unions, parents, corporate leaders and academics behind it.    The thesis- however- that MCPS has systematically narrowed the achievement gap or in some other way improved the quality of teaching within the county is simply put- not supported by the data in any meaningful way.


The stakes are thus considerable.    If our models of reform have it wrong, then our educational system will not provide the human capital ready and able to compete in  (as Friedman puts it) a flattening global environment.     We must pick our models of reform well.     


My hope is to help us do just that.

On data driven accontability

Data is powerful because it has the ability to provide the objective evidence we use to support claims valued by society.    Want to know if we are making progress?  Simply monitor the right data.  For example- Our schools are failing- just look at the most recent PISA results from reading and mathematics.   Want to know if students in Montgomery County Public Schools are "college ready?"   There is data for that too.  These selective still frames of evidence help us to build an argument- or in essence tell a story about successes and failures- from which we can hopefully make more thoughtful and socially optimal decisions.   It is thus helpful to think of data as a form of evidence that helps formulate an argument. 

No Child Left Behind has recently made famous this use of evidentiary argument.  If schools fail to meet certain performance thresholds across various demographic groups in reading and math, schools are labeled as "failing."  For this reason, many have hailed NCLB as the beginning of the accountability movement.    The result, of course, is that we now have thousands of failing schools across the United States.

However valuable data can be- and however useful it is in helping to guide decision making, the use of data also has serious though often ignored limitations.   We obsess not over solutions to serious problems, but over the most recent release of data points of dubious value.   As if that one data point could make or break a school system, school, principal, or teacher.  If the data can be moved, the reasoning goes, there must be progress.  Decision makers therefore attack data points, and not the underlying condition or problem which a data point suggest might exist.   Of course, we cannot simply conclude that policy decisions which target specific data points are all wrong all the time;  in fact, very often these decisions are accompanied by positive externalities.  However, it is also true that this type of decision making can prove particularly superficial, if not entirely problematic, when attempting to answer our most pressing issues.

As I was reading All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis, I was struck by the type of catastrophic mistakes that can result when we try to fix data rather than problems.   By now, we are well aware of the housing crisis that led to the "great recession" of our generation.   In part, I believe this was caused by an obsession with data points.  As the book reveals, in 1980 the home ownership rate in the United States reached a temporary peak of 65.6% and by 1990, this number had fallen to 63.9%.    The country, according to the data, was failing.  A few years later, then President Clinton embarked on a concentrated effort to reverse this trend- announcing the specific goal of increasing home ownership by 8 million families.   The goal was noble- raise the percentage of people who own their homes.   How could we go wrong?

When we attack data points rather than underlying problems- we ask ourselves an inherently different set of questions than when we attack problems.  For instance, when we attack data like home ownership rates, we ask how it might be possible to move one more family, or one million more families, toward home ownership. We concentrate on the result- understanding that by increasing home ownership we realize success.  However, if our recent past is any indicator, this was indeed the wrong question.   To move the data point we did not have to increase the ability of people to afford homes, we could simply relax the  lending standards necessary to qualify for a loan.   Indeed, home ownership at the end of 2009 stood at 67.4%; the past twenty years verify the trend.  But how many people would dare declare we are now better off now than we were twenty years ago?   And how many people who own homes today wish they did not because they are not house rich, but pitifully house poor?

Home ownership is not an end- but one piece of evidence that could support a claim about standards of living.   To truly attack this problem, we must do something other than move an economic needle.   We must address a wide range of economic indicators of well being.  Not a simple chore- nor one that could be accomplished in the short political life cycle of an individual politician.

The same type of data driven decision making is made in education today.  Let me start by offering a common example of how principals might use data to evaluate a teacher.  As we know, a successful teacher will most often have a well behaved classroom. In education we call this skill behavior management. It thus makes sense to use office referrals as an indicator of behavior management.  The premise is simple, a teacher who refers many students to the office over the course of a year has a behavior management issue in his or her classroom.   Likewise, a teacher who refers very few students to the Principal's office has no such issues.   Hopefully by now, you see where this is leading.   A teacher who wishes to appear "successful" simply must forgo sending students to the office; in so doing the teacher eliminates the appearance of behavior management issues.  The principal need not spend valuable minutes or hours reviewing behavioral management techniques with the teacher.   And the teacher need not attend any professional development classes.   The problem- or I should say the appearance of a problem- has disappeared.

This type of decision making, decision making which targets data and the perceptions the data creates- is not limited to classroom teachers or principals.  In fact, I believe it is fully integrated into the culture of school systems nationwide.  To return briefly to the example of No Child Left Behind, we might imagine the following scenario: a middle school fails to meet the testing threshold for NCLB (known as Adequate Yearly Progress) in 8th grade reading.  The school therefore faces a probationary period before being added to the list of  "failing schools."  If the the school moves enough 8th grade students in the right demographic groups across the threshold, the school can once again be considered a darling.   So the school spends time, money, and resources targeting all students that are most likely on the precipice of passing the statewide 8th grade reading test.   The school, in order to avoid being taken over, smartly chooses to ignore students who are above grade level in reading, and furthermore decides to ignore students substantially below grade level (reasoning that no matter what interventions take place- those students are likely to fail).  The school then pumps resources into a group of 20 students in 8th grade reading that will likely make the difference between a "successful" school year and a "failing" one.   The school passes, and the principal and school announce their success.  All the while, there has been no change in the underlying problems that the school community may face.   Nonetheless, system superintendents continue to target data points that create favorable perceptions of their performance, and principals race furiously to make those superintendents happy.

The question is whether the data driven accountability movement will likely lead to the decisions that improve our educational system.   Unfortunately, most of those who make the decisions that affect students are not around long enough to see their impact. As far as careers go, it is much more effective to appear successful immediately.  With only three to  five years before the next big promotion, decision makers must act quickly (just enough time to move data).

Furthermore, adding more data points as evidence of success will do little to address the underlying problems faced by educators today.   Rather, the use of additional data only serves to occupy even more people with the time consuming task of figuring out how to move all the needles in the correct direction.   That is not to say that data cannot be useful as feedback or promising as a tool when considered holistically.  But the current trend that sends teachers and principals after nuggets of pseudo success will only result in more educational stagnation. 

These solutions fix data, but not education.  And we cannot afford to be underwater on our future.

Is MCEA any different?

The Montgomery County teacher's union, MCEA, recently reprinted this post by Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post.   But as I read it over, I couldn't help but think that my union, MCEA, was no different than the political machine that created the problems Strauss blogs about:

[If we cared about children] we would never tolerate a poverty rate among children of 21 percent.

That’s one in five kids who live in poverty, or nearly 15 million children in the United States who live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, currently pegged at $22,050 a year for a family of four.

And that, of course, doesn’t include the kids who live in families of four who make $22,051 a year. Or $22,052. In fact, research shows that families need an income of about twice the poverty level to cover basic costs, so at that rate, 42 percent of American children live at or close enough to the poverty level so that basics aren’t being covered.

Which groups in the U.S. are least likely to be in poverty?   The old.   Those on social security.   It is the same group of people who are politically active.   Those unable to vote?   Most likely to be in poverty.

Now let's talk about the haves and have nots in our union.    A 1st year teacher makes half as much as a teacher who has taught for twenty years.     A 1st year teacher is involuntarily transferred before a more senior teacher.   A 1st year teacher must be fired before a more senior teacher.   If our children are the second class citizens of society, then our new teachers are the second class citizens of the union.

I went to an MCEA Representative Assembly meeting in December.  My first.   The median age in that room must have been 50 years old.   Retired teachers have more of a say in our union than new teachers.  This is not hyperbole.   I could count on one hand the number of teachers under 30 at the meeting.  This despite the fact that 60% of our teachers have less than 10 years of experience.   Of course, this is just democracy in action.

We can say we're a democracy, but that doesn't mean we represent the interests of our constituents.  It is much more likely that we represent the interests of those who are politically active.   And that's why we continue to have arcane seniority rules.   And it's why we'll continue to have reform dictated to us from above.

Pleasant testing, kids.

A plan for removing teachers

Everyone is predicting bad things for next year's budget.    Here is a good one from the Gazette:

After noting that "no one here is an advocate on behalf of reducing staff in schools," Edmonds asked Weast whether the school system had a plan in place for determining which teachers should be let go first, if some have to be cut.


Weast replied that there was, but that the decision might have to be made in the latter stages of fiscal 2011, which ends June 30, because of uncertainty over state funding.

Of course there is  a plan.  First play bureaucratic hot potato.  Then play last hired, first fired.  Great idea!

Given that is our system, does it make sense to complain about a new system that will force us to recognize differences in teaching ability?    If you fail to recognize and fix your own problems, don't complain when someone else tries to fix it for you. 

Where the Teacher Unions will go

Here's a little bit from Professor Gary Anderson of New York University that I found at the Huffington Post.   Where might the future of education and unions lie?   According to Anderson, with Peer Asssitance and Review (PAR):

So teachers unions must continue to defend teachers' wages, benefits, and pensions, but they will be vulnerable to attack if they allow themselves to be defined as roadblocks to innovation and protectors of bad teachers. Perhaps more ominous, many working class Americans who failed to protect their private sector unions are now turning on teachers, whom they view as overpaid and with fat pensions.

One approach that has begun to change the image of teachers unions is Peer-Assisted Review or PAR. It involves peer evaluation of teachers that addresses teacher induction and development as well as due process issues. The peer evaluator and teacher meet with a board made up of district administrators and union officials who ultimately decide on the outcome of the peer-evaluation. This system not only allows for a more collegial form of evaluation and support, but also involves both the district and the union in decisions about teacher quality. This system has also been shown to be more effective at identifying incompetent teachers and either making them better or moving them out of the system. More in depth information on PAR can be found in Jennifer Goldstein's book, Peer Review and Teacher Leadership: Linking Professionalism and Accountability, and on the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers.

PAR may be the future, but the steps taken so far in Montgomery County fall woefully short of an effective system.   The foundation is in place, but we have not taken the next steps to strengthen it.   The best way to stregthen it would be for Montgomery County co cut administrators out of the evaluative process altogether.   They are unable to offer supports that teachers need.   They are unable "to show" teachers how to teach.      They are unable to use the PAR process as it was intended, because they find it too tedius to place teachers in the system.   The system needs to be implemented by teachers from beginning to end.  It needs to be  more complete and continuous.  Trust me when I say this: if teachers were in charge, the evaluation process would be far more effective than it is now.

Jerry Weast on Evaluation

Superintendent of Schools Jerry Weast on evaluations in Montgomery County (with thanks for the Parent's Coalition for bringing it to my attention):

Attitude reflects leadership

National Board Certified teacher, David Cohen, recently left the following comment on my blog.   David is part of a group of accomplished teachers who write a policy blog out in California.   We have been having a conversation about, well, conversation.    We both agree that teacher evaluation systems around the U.S. need some revamping.   The question that we have been exploring, I suppose, is how we communicate and accomplish that goal.  Here is my response to his original comments:

A part of our disagreement, I believe, is that like many of us, I write a local blog in the context of a more national discussion on reform.   Montgomery County, where I teach, has traditionally been considered a rather progressive union (loaded phrase). Our professional growth system is based on the 5 National Board Standards plus a 6th (professionalism). We have a peer evaluation system in place for novice and tenured teachers who receive an unsatisfactory evaluation. However, what this means in theory and practice are often two different things.  In theory, principals refer teachers to the peer evaluation system when the need arises.  In practice, few tenured teachers are given an opportunity to take advantage of the system.   It is viewed as a punishment- and a way of removing teachers- not helping them develop.  Meanwhile, we still continue to utilize a seniority system that does not effectively encourage or reward professional growth.  I feel the pulls of mediocredom every day.  

Now, I can go into my union and suggest subtle changes to the system but unless we can come to agreement that there is a problematic culture in place we're not going to be able to attack the serious issues that are preventing us from moving forward. I've said this before to you, but when there is more incentive to coach football after school than to develop mastery lessons- there exists a problematic culture. That's not to say that after school activities are not an important part of being a teacher- I used to coach myself- and personal relationship building is a crucial part of teaching- however, when coaching is valued more than a quality lesson- something is amiss. How do we encourage teachers to meet regularly, to observe each other, and to think about taking their teaching to an uncomfortable place? It's funny, but the one thing that the Tennessee study on performance pay concluded- of all things- was that teachers in the study were more likely to collaborate:

The only other significant differences were in collaborative activities, with treatment teachers replying that they collaborated more on virtually every measured dimension. 

They wanted to see what was so "good" about teacher x.... even though they didn't really believe that the tests their students took accurately measured how effective a teacher they were.   Now, we can argue over whether "merit pay" is the way to go, but I think there is a more important point here.   When we value quality teaching, we are more likely to take efforts to become quality.  If we have "master" teachers who are paid more, or who are even just recognized as a master without the extra pay- people will be more inclined to look at that teacher and figure out how to become one. You don't learn how to become a teacher when an interloper comes into your class and tells you how you could do it better. You become a better teacher when you reflect about your practice. I think there is no better way to do that than to watch high quality instruction. Unfortunately, I don't know of many places where instructional leaders are in a classroom, let alone in a classroom with an open door policy.

Now- perhaps this doesn't excuse the way I beat the drum on issues of seniority. I've been accused of attacking veteran teachers.   I've been accused of being pompous.  And I see how some may interpret my ideas in this way.   But when you go to a union and ask for change you best not go with a purple feather duster in your hand (mine at home is purple).

That said- I'm often offended by the way my union defends our current professional growth system as a "model system"  to be destroyed by RTTP reforms. The implication is that there is no way to improve our system- which I passionately resent.    We defend, defend, and defend.   If we reflected half as much as we defended we'd be much better off.   Many of the wonderful teachers in my and other buildings agree that seniority is a problem.   However they are not apt to engage in a fight to change.   Do these teachers have a voice?   Or does it take the Rhees and Kleins and Duncans of the world to make that point for us?

So I suppose I'll put away my drum when I feel like we're headed in the right direction.  I admit that may be to my own detriment.   But I will certainly consider my messaging- because I believe in due process- and I believe in professional growth- and I believe in teachers.  And perhaps my drum is beating on the wrong points.

But let me just say this- and perhaps this is my downfall- most of my postings have been reactionary in nature: and attitude reflects leadership.  The lesson might be that I stop reading about my leaders and do more talking to them.

What are we fighting about?

On April 15, 2010, a teacher whom I taught with in my days at Neelsville Middle School was murdered.   I didn't know Brian Betts very well.   But  Brian was one of those people.   If you were around him, you were impacted by him.

Eight or nine years ago, Brian forward me an editorial that appeared in the Gazzette regarding the "extreme" salaries paid to teachers in Montgomery County Public Schools.   Some lawyer from such and such who wrote a semi-regular column.      He went on to explain that teachers, when you added in their benefits, made some extraordinary amount of money, all at tax payer expense.  I was new to the system then, and had a strong emotional reaction to his argument.   I wrote a response based on the premise that I never would have been in education had it not been for the ability to make a livelihood - without the ability to raise a family.   At the time, MCPS was probably the only place in Maryland where teachers were compensated with relative fairness.    Simply put,  compensation was why I chose to teach.   It is why I ended up in Montgomery County.


I did not send my reply to the editors, but to Brian.    He said two words in a return email.   "Send it."

I didn't.

On April 16th I started this blog.   And I don't know much, but I do know this:  Our schools- MCPS, Maryland, the nation- they can do better.   I have no patience for grandstanding.    I have no patience for data manipulation used to distort truths or to reach individual ends.    Our schools are not bad.   Our teachers are not the enemies.  But if you're not improving, you're doing something else.  

So I ask, what are we doing to make our system better?   What are we doing to make teachers better?   Are we putting in place costly programs?   Or are we investing in the one in school factor proven to matter most: a quality teacher in every classroom.

It's time to make our schools better.   It's time to identify problems, and create solutions.   But we can't do that if we won't engage in an honest analysis of the problems.   Want to stop the emphasis on standardized testing?   Determine the problem- then proffer solutions.

Of course, I'm not sure that we all acknowledge the existence of a problem.    Obviously, the "reform" movement does.   This group of expert teachers from the Center for Teaching Quality does.   Many teachers I talk with do.  Could it be that ALL these people are simply anti-teacher? 

There's a need to push forward to improve our schools.   There is great work being done.  I see it everyday.   But there is need to think about how we can do it better.   I'm not talking about taking over schools, or firing people, or making sure everyone has a voucher.   I'm talking about ways to come together and make things better.

Teachers must do more than ask for more money and more benefits.  We must do more than claim we are under-appreciated (even if there is a degree of truth in these claims).   Instead, we must continuously monitor our own growth and consider how we can improve that system.   When we do that- the money and benefits will follow.    But first we must first build concensus on the problems.  Only then can we determine how to fix those problems.

Reactions to new Baltimore City Contract

So I spoke with Liz Bowie over at the Baltimore Sun earlier this week.    She wrote this article about the new Baltimore City contract.    I'm not exactly looking for a job in Baltimore City- as it sounds based on some of my quotes.   I love my job.   And my students.   I'm not going anywhere for the time being.   I'd much rather my own school district rewrite it's evaluation system to include some of the tenents found in the BCSS contract.   There's room to create something better than what we've got in Montgomery County.   Much better.   And I think Baltimore took a step in the right direction.   Kudos to the city and its union.

New Evaluation? NO. NO! NO!!!

MCEA (and then MSEA) says no to new evaluations required by the new state regulations.   They say yes only if they don't have to change.    I"ll concede the MCEA point on too much testing when MCEA and MCPS admit they can do a better job than they currently do identifying ineffective teachers.   If they can't do it better, the testing provides an objective meausure for evaluators to move in that direction.

Broad Acres Elementary and the case for Reform

I was recently asked what I thought about Broad Acres Elementary school, an elementary school in Montgomery County with a farms rate exceeding 90% that was faced with the possibility of a state takeover almost 10 years ago.  However, the school went forward with an innovative solution:  union and mcps officials agreed to work together in order to find a workable plan to raise test scores.   In the agreement, all teachers who agreed to stay at the elementary school promised to "officially" work an additional 15 days a year.   The principal and school staff then worked together, often with teachers leading the way, to implement a number of programs and strategies to raise scores.   Two thirds of the teachers agreed to stay on, and another 1/3rd opted out, moving to other schools.   The results have been nothing short of extraordinary.

The Tom Mooney Institute wrote a report describing the turn around at Broad Acres Elementary.  It was all a little too “union congratulatory” for my liking but when it got to the meat of what went on there was a lot of interesting bits.   In particular, I was intrigued by the empowerment of the teachers in the decision making process.   Teachers seemed to over-ride principals.   And I loved the part where teachers were doing walk-troughs in lieu of administrators.  This type of ripe feedback, provided not as a stick or carrot but as a way for intrinsically motivated teachers to learn about and improve their craft is largely missing in the professional growth system currently implemented in Montgomery County. And I don't know all the details- but in the very least there is some anecdotal evidence that the school- by allowing teachers who had the motivation to work more hours and with greater autonomy- could have a substantial impact on their students.


But we also need to consider which  1/3rd of teachers opted out of the school. Was it the most effective teachers who just wanted to teach in a less challenging environment?  Was it the least effective teachers who couldn't stand the thought of working another 15 days a year?   Was it a combination of those and other variables?   My intuition is that this variable had more of an impact than anything that when on inside of the school once this core group of teachers left.   Further, I wonder why this model was not implemented in other schools in Montgomery County.    Yes it is costly, but not near as costly as some of the other programs implemented across the county in budget building years from 2000 to 2008.   Anybody have thoughts?

My skeptical thought- get rid of the least effective teachers in a building- and replace them with just average teachers- and watch real educational reform take place.

Baltimore City Rejects new Pay for Performance Contract

Baltimore City Public School teachers recently rejected a proposed new contract that would provide across the board raises and allow some teachers - atleast one per school- to make more than $10,000 a year more than previous years.   Perhaps to no surprise, much of the discontent came from the more senior teachers- who perhaps had the most to lose without guaranteed year over year step increases. Younger teachers, who could perhaps rise up the salary ranks more quickly, were more supportive of the potential changes.  

One issue that must be addressed in any new evaluation system, is how principals and assistant pricipals will be evaluated.   If the rest of the nation is like Montgomery County, it is harder to get rid of a bad administrator than it is to get rid of a bad teacher.   And some of these bad administrators are the ones being asked to conduct the evaluations of teachers.   Not exactly reassuring.

MCPS and a Former Employee

A former employee from MCPS's Office of Shared Accountability  recently wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post critical of the MCPS/Washington Post claim that MCPS is the top school district in the state.   The author, John Larson, then offered a few data points to suggest why MCPS and the Washington Post might reconsider their claim.    Jerry Weast and MCPS Board member, Patricia O'neill, then coauthored this response, providing their own data points, concluding the following:

Ultimately, we are not afraid of comparisons — in fact, we embrace them. All we ask is that those comparisons are made using statistics that actually mean something.

The employment of statistics is indeed a useful endeavor.   Data tells a story.  And the story it tells can help hardworking organizations and people get feedback about what they do well and what they need to improve.   MCPS often uses statistics to celebrate it's own accomplishments.   However, I have recently come to wonder to what extent MCPS uses data to analyze its weaknesses.