Collective
Bargaining…
MTI, AFSCME and MMSD have
agreed to begin bargaining for contracts that will run beyond the end of the
current school year!! While hailed as
good news by most who work in the schools, this is sure to raise the ire of citizens
who believe that Act 10 and other policies are positive steps in
"reforming" our state's budget and labor relations policies.
Conservatives have put
significant effort into promoting the ideas that unions are irrelevant and
unwanted, and that public educator unions actually stand in the way of
improvements in our public schools. To a
large extent it would appear that they've been successful in their
efforts. In 2010 the, over 400 public
school systems in Wisconsin,
were each operating under collective bargaining agreements. In 2013 only 4 such agreements are in
effect. By 2014 there could only be 1 if
MTI is able to negotiate successfully with MMSD. The remainder of the school districts will
employ handbooks that are created by administration and school boards with
educators on the outside looking in at their creation. Along the way we've heard many lies about the
opinions of workers in our state, lies about the impacts of Act 10 and hateful
rhetoric designed to inflame public opinion against public educator unions.
MTI and AFSCME members
have conflicting emotions around the negotiations. There is no doubt that the vast majority are
hopeful that we will see a contract emerge that continues to provide the
benefits, conditions and protections that members deserve. There is also the pride in our union and the
confidence in our leadership that I hear expressed on a daily basis.
Along with these positive
emotions, come the fear that we will lose more of the things that we value in
our contracts. Things like planning time
and educator independence have all been reduced in previous negotiations, held
under less than favorable circumstances.
We also dread the inevitable educator bashing and union bashing that
inevitably accompanies any public discussions involving our union and the
district.
Yet, the positives in a
new contract outweigh the negatives by a wide margin. Among the most significant are the legal
protections that a collective bargaining agreement provide school district
employees. We need these protections if
we are to continue the fight to advocate for ourselves, and more importantly,
the students and families we serve. New
evaluation systems, expanding efforts to "reform" our schools and
other policy changes leave us vulnerable to the whims of the current
educational environment. Something that
doesn't benefit the majority of those who work and learn in our schools.
In the end we may not
achieve all that we want in our negotiations, yet we do achieve two vitally
important things. We hold on to hope,
and we maintain our ability to continue the struggle on terms that we have had
a voice in creating. A voice that our
school board and administration need to listen to, and to respect. If our staff is truly the resource that we
hear those in authority say they believe it to be, then we deserve a contract
that gives us the "tools" we need to do our jobs well and lets us
know we are valuable parts of the school system.
Data
Driven, In the Wrong Direction…
The latest buzzwords and
trends in education focus around the theme of data. We collect data, we analyze data, and of
course we are supposed to use data to improve the quality of education for our
students. Data is supposed to be the
central justification for any action that educators make. We should be able to use data to identify
problems, plan solutions and determine if our efforts were successful.
It all seems to make
perfect sense and turns educational efforts into easily understood and readily
evaluated enterprises. Educating
students becomes a series of "if, then" statements. If we do this, then we will see students
respond and achieve in this way. Educational policy makers from all sides of the issue are being
swept along in this flood of data. Well
meaning advocates for students and public education find themselves joining the
call for using data to drive instruction.
This type of thinking is not revolutionary. Educators have been using data to help guide
instruction and to evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts forever.
Merriam-Webster defines
data as, "Factual information (as measurements or
statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation." In other words, data is concrete, measurable
and can be clearly defined. Traits that
reduce education to a series of points on a graph, or a collection of facts
that we learn. We can identify a good
student because the data tells us that they are proficient of advanced, and we
can recognize problems when students fall into basic or minimal categories.
What then is the problem
that educators are having with data in our current educational climate? For me, there is a distinct difference
between data from assessments being used as a part of planning curriculum and
evaluating student progress, and the idea that our educational efforts will be
"Data Driven". In the former,
data is one piece of the puzzle. In the
latter, data is the entire picture and it eliminates any other potential tools
that can be used to improve the educational outcomes for all of our
students.
When we
define success purely by data we face the potential to turn the quest for
knowledge into a linear progression that centers on the acquisition of
facts. Learning becomes a step by step
process, the equivalent of a paint-by-numbers piece of artwork. Students become trapped in a system that
doesn't allow for growth in other directions or in leaps that move them outside
of accepted pathways. We narrow our
definitions of intelligence, limit student achievement, reduce educator effectiveness
and simplify our analysis of educational outcomes to the point that they are
rendered meaningless.
There is
a distinct difference between assessments that guide instruction and the belief
that assessment drives instruction. To
me, guiding instruction implies a place for assessment that is equal to other
aspects of the educational process. A
guide is a person or resource that is with a group of equal and equally
committed partners. Guides lead us, where
we all want to go. Guiding is gentler
and more responsive to the needs of those being directed. On the other hand, driving seems to imply a
more forceful and less cooperative approach.
We drive cattle, we don’t guide them.
When we drive in any direction we have a direct and specific
purpose. I return to the days of long
family trips where the driver chose the radio station, the destination, the
pace and the stops along the way. A
driver is in total control and dictates the journey, a guide is a leader who
facilitates a journey.
Assessment
has become the driver of virtually everything in our schools. Instead of being a part of the process, it is
the process. We have become so fixated
on identifying problems and quantifying our efforts to address these issues
that we have forgotten about meaningfully educating our students. We ignore the multiple intelligences that
exist in our students. By focusing on
testing we miss the brilliance that exists, and the sheer joy of learning new
things. I watch my students struggle to
answer A, B, C, or D when they really want to talk about the possibility of
E. I hear from families that, because of
the need to address academic concerns identified by assessment, their child
hasn't received science or social studies instruction during previous school
years. I hear that my instruction should
focus on using literature to validate teaching points and expand skills, not to
build my students ability to really read and think for themselves.
Educational
decision makers can speak all they want about the importance of assessment,
they can trumpet the need to make sure we close every Gap. What they can't do is convince me that the
scores on my students achievement tests define my students as learners, or more
importantly as people. The drive to
close our Achievement Gaps focuses on the wrong place. We want our students to test well, even if
they don't learn well. Education becomes
a job. A job with clear pathways and
outcomes. Scoring proficient or advanced
on an achievement test doesn't make a student well educated, but it does give
the appearance of success.
The
emphasis on testing impacts the curriculum and climate of a school in many
ways. The time taken gathering data to
drive our instruction, eliminates time to give instruction. Educators in my building are grappling with
the reality that there are more tests to administer, less support given to
administer these tests and less time to build the sense of community that will
allow our most challenged students a chance to thrive. Imagine coming to school as a child and
having the majority of your initial interactions with adults at school be based
around individual assessments, not on learning.
The
pressure on our schools and our students to achieve on tests is very real. Take for example the DPI School
Report Cards. These are issued at the
beginning of every year and rate schools based on a variety of criteria. The public sees the scores, but little deep
analysis is done. A significant portion
of the report card is based on testing.
Testing that is done in November of every school year. A month that follows the initial wave of
assessments in September and the MAP testing that occurs in September and
October. Students are tested before they
are instructed and schools are judged on the results. No matter how much we say we are going to not
"teach to the test", the reality is that our educational environment
is shaped by these assessments. We have
little choice, but to give assessment a prominent place in our schools.
Assessment
takes resources away from education and transfers it to testing. Our efforts to refine assessment don't come
without a hefty price tag. Yet, these
valuable funds don't really end up helping students, they go to the makers of
the tests.
All the
assessment and data in the world won't address the root causes of our student's
struggles. Knowing what they don't know
isn't the answer to improving educational outcomes. All of the assessments don't provide us with
significantly more information than educators can already gather as they work
with students. Instead, the assessments
cement a sense of failure in our students who already have a fragile sense of
self in school.
As
assessment gains more and more power in the educational system we find that it
eliminates educator responsibility, educator creativity and puts students in
categories that are difficult to escape.
Educators give assessments and then respond to the assessments using
prescribed methods of addressing concerns that are raised by a student's
scores. We turn education into a
bureaucracy and a formulaic delivery of isolated skills. Students who test well are allowed some
latitude in learning because they have achieved basic "core" skills. Students who don't test well, are trapped in
a cycle of remediation. We use data to
reassure ourselves that we are correct in our instruction of students, even if
the data measured may not consistently provide information of significance.
Educators
who speak out against this new data driven system are criticized and soon will
be evaluated on their adherence to the prescribed methods of educating
students. Half of our evaluations will
be based on "Professional Practice".
As we lose the protections that we've negotiated over the years we are vulnerable
to discipline if we don't adhere to the programs that our districts purchase
and promote. Of course the other half of
the evaluation will be based on student achievement, another way that data
drives our system.
Data
driven instruction, and multiple assessments also are used to justify the
"reforms" that are promoted by policy makers. We use data to make broad policy decisions
that supposedly improve the quality of instruction. Yet in the years following NCLB, with all the
emphasis on trying to close the "Test Score Gaps" we haven't
succeeded. Instead we've created a
culture of assessment and remediation that promotes stagnation and segregates
our schools. As we slowly have eliminated
NCLB we find ourselves trapped by Race to the Top, Common Core and other
reforms.
Data
driven schools are more segregated and the "reforms" do little to
help students who have traditionally struggled in our schools. Most of my students who are part of the
Achievement Gaps, are people who learn in less traditional ways. By testing them endlessly, identifying what
they don't know, battering their self esteem, and then putting them in
situations where they are asked to learn skills in isolation, we do little to
improve their performance, or their attitudes about learning.
Can, and
should, schools improve? Of course,
there are many things that we could be doing better in our public education
system. Are we currently headed in the
correct direction, using the best "drivers" available? The general consensus among professional
educators is a resounding, NO!
Closing
Achievement Gaps, and improving educational outcomes for all students isn't an
easy task. If it were, we wouldn't have
the Gaps and the disparity that currently exists. That is, if we are truly putting all
available resources and best efforts into improving our public school
systems. It certainly appears that there
is a concerted effort to try and "reform" our schools, not for
students or education, but for profit and maintaining a social structure that
is segregated and stratified.
No comments:
Post a Comment