Nov. 10 NYC Education Reform Retrospective agenda

I got forwarded two different items from two different third parties, including an invitation and the agenda for the Gates-funded NYC Ed Reform retrospective conference next week (see below for the agenda).

The invitation claimed (once again) that “The list of invitees includes researchers, practitioners, state policy makers and other stakeholders, both inside and outside NYC.”

The only NYC public school parents who are allowed to attend this invitation-only event are the five borough appointees on the Panel for Education Policy, originally with the excuse that there was no room for any others. For more on this, see our blog here.

[NOV. 9 UPDATE: I have learned that two parents from CEJ have been recently added to the guest list, perhaps in response to criticism here and elsewhere.]

Yet they have now extended the RSVP date several times, and also the invitations to a wider group as too few on the original list of invitees apparently signed up. They are also apparently inviting some reporters but excluding others.

I especially like the title of one of the papers: "Improving Instruction in NYC Schools: An Evolving Strategy." That's certainly one way to put it!

Also see this: “Parent and Community Engagement in New York City and the Sustainability Challenge for Urban Education Reform.”

What parent and community engagement? Parent and community engagement has been consistently discouraged by this administration from the beginning, so I don’t see how there’s anything to sustain. Even DOE's office of family engagement has now taken out the word "engagement" out of its title, in recognition of this fact.

James Kemple, will be presenting a paper on student outcomes. Kemple was chosen as the head of the much-ballyhooed “Research Alliance” (originally called the Research Partnership) in October 2008 , which is supposed to be a repository for student data that could be made available to independent researchers.

The Alliance was also supposed to produce its own reports, but as far as I know this paper will be the very first released since Kemple was appointed – more than two years ago.

Meanwhile, though this event is happening on Nov. 10, the papers won't be made available to the public until Nov. 15 -- according to its website.

---

New York City Education Reform Retrospective:

The Children First Initiative, 2002 - 2010

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

New York Marriott Downtown, 85 West Street at Albany Street

New York, NY 10016

3^rd Floor – Grand Ballroom A&B

Agenda

8:00 – 9:00 AM Registration; Light breakfast

9:00 – 9:30 AM Introductory Remarks

9:45 – 11:45 AM Paper Sessions

Due to space limitations, please attend the session you registered for.

Session A: Governance, Leadership, and Finance

Grand Ballroom A&B

Leadership and Governance in New York City School Reform, presented by Paul T. Hill, University of Washington

Parent and Community Engagement in New York City and the Sustainability Challenge for Urban Education Reform, presented by Jeffrey R. Henig, Teachers College, Columbia University

Financing K-12 Education in the Bloomberg Years, 2002-2008, presented by Leanna Stiefel, New York University

Session B: Teaching and Learning

Grand Ballroom C

Managing for Results at the New York City Department of Education, presented by Monica Higgins, Harvard Graduate School of Education

Improving Instruction in New York City Schools: An Evolving Strategy, presented by Jennifer A. O’Day, American Institutes for Research

Collaborative Inquiry to Expand Student Success in New York City Schools, presented by Joan E. Talbert, Stanford University

11:45 – 12:30 Lunch

12:45 – 2:45 Paper Sessions

Due to space limitations, please attend the session you registered for.

Session C: High School Reform

Grand Ballroom A&B

Changing Contexts and the Challenge of High School Reform in New York City, presented by Leslie Santee Siskin, New York University

School Choice and Competition in the New York City Schools, presented by Sean P. Corcoran, New York University

How Students’ Views Predict Graduation Outcomes and Reveal Instructional Disparities Under Children First Reforms, presented by Ronald F. Ferguson, Harvard University

Session D: Teachers and Student Outcomes

Grand Ballroom C

Recruiting, Evaluating and Retaining Teachers: The Children First Strategy to Improve New York City’s Teachers, presented by Jim Wyckoff, University of Virginia

New York City Education Reform Retrospective—Children First and Student Outcomes: 2003-2010, presented by James Kemple, Research Alliance for New York City Schools, New York University

3:00 – 4:00 Panel Discussion: Reflections and Take-Aways from the NYC Education Reform Retrospective

4:00 – 4:30 Plenary Session: Chancellor Joel Klein

4:30 – 5:00 Concluding Remarks

What do educators themselves say about the best way to improve teacher effectiveness?

See Mike Petrilli's post on the Fordham "Gadfly" about how we should focus more on making the teachers we have more effective, rather than continuing to search for the elusive "higher quality" teacher through strategies like eliminating tenure, pay for performance, or alternative certification.

While I agree with the thrust of his argument, his suggestion that one way of doing this through "augmenting technology" is bogus. No study has shown that technology improves teacher effectiveness or raises student achievement.

Instead, teachers themselves say that the best way to improve their effectiveness by far is to reduce class size. See the recent national survey of first year teachers from Public Agenda, called "Lessons Learned" .

76% of teachers overall said that reducing class size would be "a very effective" way of improving teacher quality, and 78% of teachers who work in high needs schools. 21% of teachers said reducing class size would be "effective", for a total of 97% -- far outstripping every other strategy mentioned, including :

Increasing teacher salaries (57%), increasing professional development opportunities (54%), making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers (41%), requiring new teachers to spend time under the supervision of experienced teachers (35%) requiring graduate degrees in education (21%), requiring teachers to pass tough tests of their knowledge ot their subject (21%), tying salaries to principal or colleagues assessment (15%) tying rewards and sanctions to student performance (13%), eliminating tenure (12%), reducing regulations for teacher certification (8%), and relying more on alternative certificaiton (6%)..

(In each of the categories I have put in parentheses the percent who said this would be a "very effective" way to to improve teacher quality.)

By the way, these views about the effectiveness of reducing class size to improve teacher effectiveness are shared by more experienced teachers and most principals as well.

See this 2006 public agenda survey of teachers and school administrators, "Is Support for Standards and Testing Fading."

"If the public schools finally got more money and smaller classes, they could do a better job." 88% of teachers agreed with this statement, and 85% of superintendents and principals, far outstripping any response.

Compare how many teachers, superintendents and principals agreed with this statement: "More testing and higher standards will ensure kids will master the skills they need": 1% (teachers), 7% (supers); 10% (principals).

If we really respected the opinions and views of the professionals who work in our schools, we would do everything in our power to reduce class size.

What teacher surveys say about merit pay vs. class size

An editorial in Saturday's NY Times argues, as others have, that the new merit pay proposal to be implemented in 200 low-performing schools “represents a good first step toward the goal of attracting teachers to the most challenging schools — and keeping them there.”

The argument that the chance of a $3,000 bonus will draw teachers to low-performing schools is dubious. There is at least an equal chance that through no fault of their own, such a school will get a failing grade on the new progress report, be further stigmatized – and eventually closed. Why wouldn’t teachers be responsible for a school’s low grade?

First of all, the new reward system as well as each school's grade will be based largely on one year's test scores alone -- highly unreliable, statistically speaking. Moreover, many factors out of any individual teacher's control, such as class size and overcrowding, will not be considered in the assessment of his or her performance -- or a school's grade, for that matter.

In North Carolina, educators were polled from throughout the state to find out what would be the most effective measure to attract teachers to work in low-performing schools. The number one response was lowering class size, with 83.7% of teachers and 83.1% of administrators replying that this way, far outstripping any other proposal, including providing salary enhancements --which came out at number five.

A just-released Public Agenda survey found that 76% of teachers say that reducing class size would be a "very effective" method to improve teacher quality, compared to fewer than one in six who believed that tying salary increases to their students' performance would be. (You can click on the chart to enlarge it.)

If the administration were really serious about enticing teachers to work in our most challenging schools, and keeping them there longer, it would immediately cap class sizes at reasonable levels. As the Times editorial points out, this would be a better way to improve student achievement in these schools as well:

"At the same time, school officials would need to make bigger changes — like cutting class sizes and improving support services — if they want to make real headway in improving student performance."