Issues of Concern
for Public School Teachers
Linda Darling-Hammond at Stanford University refutes the mythology that untrained teachers are more qualified than prepared teachers.
Ildiko Laczko-Kerr of the Arizona Department of Education and David C. Berliner of Arizona State University compare regularly certified teachers in schools serving low-income families with a cross section of emergency, temporary and provisionally certified teachers, including motivated, public-spirited college graduates who volunteer for Teach For America assignments in poor and rural schools.
from The Oregonian, 12/10/02
A bad habit of riding dead horses
ROBERT LANDAUER
Americans boast that finding creative solutions to complex problems is a distinctive national trait. Yet the nation looks remarkably rigid in a major arena of social problem-solving.
The United States has 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of its prisoners, tops in the global incarceration sweepstakes.
We imprison our citizens at six to 10 times the rate of other nations, including police states, says Angela Browne, a Newberg-reared Harvard professor.
In Oregon, almost two out of three prison inmates claim to be parents who were living with their children before sentencing. When young people see parents or other relatives cycle through jails, courts and prisons, it is a strong predictor that they will do prison time, too. Without a larger arsenal of early interventions to help parents or to counter their harmful examples, we will continue the intergenerational habit of crime.
Also, as we shrink educational opportunity in Oregon, in the mistaken belief that doing so saves money, we will perpetuate corrections, far more expensively, as a growth sector. Certification standards for doctors, lawyers, accountants and teachers try to assure that each practitioner has at least minimal professional literacy.
The courses or exams offer no guarantee that all of those who pass through the filters will show the judgment, temperament and attention to detail to avoid being hazardous to clients or damaging to students.
Nevertheless, there is broad agreement across the professions that certifying standards, reinforced by continuing career education, aid quality control and consumer protection.
So it caused quite a stir in July when Secretary of Education Rod Paige said teacher education and certification don't contribute to teacher effectiveness. He then recommended that requirements for education course work be eliminated from certification standards and that attendance at schools of education and student teaching be made optional.
It turns out that Paige was quick on the trigger when he should have been slower on the draw -- grievously wounding his credibility.
Paige relied on a single research study that two later peer-reviewed studies debunked, according to Arizona State University's Education Policy Studies Laboratory.
Linda Darling-Hammond at Stanford University (http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n36.html) is especially effective at refuting the mythology that untrained teachers are more qualified than prepared teachers -- propaganda repeatedly broadcast in political fights about using public-fund vouchers to pay for students in private and parochial schools. Darling-Hammond is a former executive director of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
The second study (http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/) compares regularly certified teachers in schools serving low-income families with a cross section of emergency, temporary and provisionally certified teachers, including motivated, public-spirited college graduates who volunteer for Teach For America assignments in poor and rural schools.
Students of certified teachers outperformed those of undercertified instructors in all areas tested -- reading, mathematics and language arts -- the researchers found. "Students of under-certified teachers make about 20 percent less academic growth per year than do students of teachers with regular certification," reported Ildiko Laczko-Kerr of the Arizona Department of Education and David C. Berliner of Arizona State University.
The research tells me two things. I would, on average, rather have children taught by certified instructors. I would, on a case-by-case basis, rather have children taught by eager but uncertified instructors than by unmotivated, castoff teachers relegated to hard-to-staff schools.
To Paige, a piece of political advice: When the horse is dead, dismount.
For others, be prepared to watch a cultural phenomenon: the imperialism of an idea, which remains aggressive even after it has been discredited. Reach Robert Landauer, editorial columnist, at 503-221-8157 or at robertlandauer@news.oregonian.com
Bullying is characterized by the following three criteria: (a) it is aggressive behavior or intentional "harmdoing;" (b) it is carried out repeatedly and over time; and (c) it occurs within an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power. . . .
“In addition to being painful and humiliating, bullying experiences make victims unhappy, distressed, and confused. These students tend to lose self-esteem and become anxious and insecure. Moreover, victims may suffer physical injury, their concentration and learning may be affected, and they may refuse to go to school. They may tend to feel stupid, ashamed and unattractive, and gradually begin to view themselves as failures. Many of the victims develop psychosomatic symptoms such as headaches and stomach pains. In some cases, the victims’ devaluation of themselves becomes so overwhelming that they see suicide as the only possible solution. . . .
“There is a connection between the level of bully/victim problems in a classroom or school and aspects of the social climate of the unit concerned. In classrooms or schools with high levels of bullying problems, students tend to feel less safe and are less satisfied with school life. This implies that, for many students, and particularly for the victims, the classroom is no longer a place of concentrated work and learning. . . .
“Core program interventions at the classroom level include establishing and enforcing specific rules against bullying, as well as holding regular classroom meetings with students to discuss various aspects of bullying and related antisocial behaviors and adherence to agreed upon classroom rules. Classroom meetings also are used to engage students in a variety of activities (e.g., role playing, writing, and small-group discussions) through which they gain a better appreciation of the harm caused by bullying and learn strategies to combat it. Meetings with parents to foster their active involvement are considered highly desirable components both at the classroom and the school levels.”
While licensed teachers stand in front of classes directing instruction and introducing subjects, the aides often focus on clusters of students who test below benchmarks -- students who need experienced, highly trained teachers the most, education experts say.
. . . .District officials say the aides are willing to work part-time for less money than certified teachers.
. . . ."Basically what they're saying is having a body there is more important than having a certified person," said Tish Olshefski, director of the paraprofessional and school-related personnel department of the American Federation of Teachers. "Well, shame on them."
. . . . "The school's going to be there for 100 years, but children only have one shot each year at each grade," Berger said. "You can't rob them of that educational opportunity by providing untrained instruction."
Portland Public Schools Superintendent Ben Canada on Monday angrily threatened to quit after a roomful of teachers blasted his plan to get students to meet state academic benchmarks.
As superintendent of Portland Public Schools, Canada presides over the largest school district in the Pacific Northwest. The district has about 54,000 students.
In a rare public display of anger, Canada lost his temper at a school board meeting Monday night after testimony upon testimony by teachers who said his proposal for individual instructional plans for failing students was meaningless and a waste of time, resources and precious classroom instruction hours.
Canada also sat through comments from school board members who appeared swayed by the teachers' comments. As Canada remained silent, some board members suggested it would be good to review Canada's proposal and other plans to push students to state benchmarks.
Canada, raising his voice and visibly angry, said he will not stay in a school system in which 20 percent to 30 percent of the students are automatically viewed as throwaways.
"If that's what the PAT wants," Canada said in reference to the Portland Association of Teachers, the teachers' union, "then you got it."
He lashed out at the teachers, practically accusing them of not caring for a large number of students.
Some of the students Canada's plan hopes to rescue from academic failure are low-income and minority students for whom parent activists have been hounding Canada and the school board for years to give the same level of education as students in more white and affluent communities.
Closing the achievement gap that plagues not only Portland, but also most urban school districts across the nation, has been a priority for Canada.
But the teachers don't think that requiring more paperwork and more testing of students will get the students to where they need to be, several teachers said during the the evening, which resulted in at least one teacher shouting at Canada.
School Board Chairwoman Debbie Goldberg Menashe called for a break in the proceedings.
"I'm really concerned that this is getting too personal," Menashe said, as some of the nearly 100 teachers in the audience shot back, "It is personal!"
Richard Garrett, president of the Portland Association of Teachers, which represents about 4,000 employees in Portland Public Schools, including 3,500 teachers, led off the evening with a stinging criticism of Canada and his plan.
Canada sat through Garrett's public tongue-lashing silently.
"These teachers have a special interest in your action plan," Garrett told Canada. "They work in schools, where the action really is, and they're here because your plan has disappointed teachers everywhere in Portland."
Garrett went on to say that Canada's plan is nothing more than more paperwork for teachers. ". . . Paper doesn't teach students," he said. "Teachers do. And your demand that teachers produce thousands of reports like these interferes with the truly important work they have to do."
Garrett and teachers said the proposed individual instructional plans for students who are below state benchmarks in reading, writing and math will cost the district tens of thousands of dollars to implement.
The proposed individual instructional plans will be costly mainly because teachers must be paid to produce them, the teachers say. But they say money is not the main issue. The concern, they say, is that the requirement robs them of precious classroom instruction time. They say with so much emphasis on testing, there are already plans in place to address poor student achievement.
Still, Garrett is urging teachers to get compensated for every individual instructional plan produced.
The district's newly approved Strategic Plan calls for preparation of an instructional plan for students in grades 2, 7 and 9 who fall below the benchmarks in math, reading, and writing, and adding grades 3, 4, 8, and 10 in 2001 and grades 5, 6, 11, and 12 in 2002.
This year 1,674 Portland Public Schools students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 fell below the benchmarks. That's 1,674 individual instructional plans the teachers would be asked to prepare, with teachers being paid for at least an hour's work on each plan.
You can reach Michael A.W. Ottey at 503-294-7668 or by e-mail at michaelottey@news.oregonian.com.
excerpts:
. . . . "Teachers make the most of their time and resources. They
make lessons personal with small, flexible groupings. They
focus sharply on academics and closely monitor student
progress. Those are all practices that research has shown
to be effective in raising student achievement, says Cotton,
author of a booklet published last week called 'The
Schooling Practices That Matter Most.'"
. . . . "In interviews, principals at eight high-achieving schools in Oregon all described the practices that Cotton has identified at work in their schools. All, for example, found ways to organize students in small, flexible groups for instruction. All had teachers working in teams, often across grade levels. All emphasized strong parental involvement, often imploring parents to read with children at home. All set expectations high for all, not just some, of their students."
. . . . "Good schools such as Echo Shaw typically exhibit all or most of the best practices, Cotton said. Using only some practices fails to provide the scope of instruction and support that children need to excel.
If a school, for example, devotes too much time to loudspeaker announcements, student misconduct and other distractions, the benefit of small class size is lost, Cotton writes."Federal Legislative Update (from NEA), August 5, 1999
http://www.nea.org/lac/octup.html
What Kids Stand to Lose From the Tax “Refund”/Budget Fight
Oregon's public employee unions are stockpiling cash they say will be needed to fight a wide range of proposed ballot measures that could cripple their political clout and hobble their membership.
The unions -- only now recovering from more than $5 million spent on hard-won victories in 1998 -- are gearing up to raise even more money for the 2000 election.
Union officials say their opponents want to gain an advantage by forcing them to fight simultaneously on several fronts.
"They're trying to overwhelm us," said James Sager, Oregon Education Association president. "We're going to do whatever we have to protect our members."
Unions have plenty to be concerned about.
Tax crusader Bill Sizemore is backing two initiatives that would severely impair unions' ability to use payroll deductions to collect money that finances their political activities.
He also is behind a proposal that would limit state spending, and his top priority is an initiative that would make federal income taxes fully deductible from state income taxes. The result would be an immediate $1 billion cut in the state budget, bigger cuts in the future and almost certain layoffs in the state's largely union work force.
Another tax activist, Don McIntire, is promoting an initiative that would require voters to approve state and local government labor contracts and one that would limit property taxes and eliminate local option taxes.
Sizemore said he is pushing for changes that will benefit taxpayers and acknowledges that it will cost unions a bundle to do battle.
In a July 1999 fund-raising letter, Sizemore told potential donors that he wanted to deplete the unions' bankroll by forcing them to fight his payroll deduction proposals. "All the money public employee unions spend fighting these two measures is money that will not be available to fight our measure" that would make federal taxes fully deductible, Sizemore wrote.
"It drains our revenue and makes it easier for (Sizemore) to do things like push federal deductibility . . . because he knows we can't fight all that," said Mary Botkin, political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "There are people he knows who will write him a check for $100,000. Our members don't have that kind of capacity."
But they can -- and do -- raise millions with small contributions.
AFSCME members, about 23,000 statewide, pay 25 cents a month to finance political campaigns plus a $3-a-month special assessment to pay off old campaign debts and keep $100,000 on hand for political needs.
Teachers who belong to the 43,000-member Oregon Education Association pay $365 a year in dues; part-timers and classified employees pay less.
The 18,000-member Oregon Public Employees' Union wants to raise a $1.5 million campaign fund, said Rich Peppers, the union's political director. Last month its members approved an ongoing $2.75-a-month dues increase to finance political activities and defeat what the union calls "the anti-worker, anti-government initiatives" of Sizemore and McIntire.
"They're going to need every dime of it -- and then some," Sizemore said.
It isn't clear how many initiatives will make the Nov. 7 ballot. Initiative supporters have until July 7 to submit the signatures necessary to qualify.
Unions are especially concerned about what some call the "Son of 59." In 1998, Sizemore backed Measure 59, which would have prohibited public employee unions from using payroll deductions to gather money to finance political campaigns.
This time, Sizemore is circulating two initiatives. One is almost identical to Measure 59; the other would prohibit a union from using a member's dues for political purposes unless the member agrees.
Two months before the 1998 election, polling found that voters strongly favored Measure 59. But the support eroded as unions poured money into a campaign to defeat it. The measure lost by 22,195 votes out of 1.1 million cast. Public- and private-sector unions spent $5.2 million to defeat Measure 59 and pass Measure 62, a campaign-finance law proposal that also guaranteed unions the right to use payroll deductions.
Among Oregon's public unions, the teachers' union was the biggest contributor to political campaigns in 1998, kicking in about $2 million, and it will play a lead role in 2000.
"We're the big dog. There's no one of our size who can step up and do the job," Sager said.
Other unions chip in what they can. "We had to scrimp and save and push all the buttons to find the money to fight Measure 59," AFSCME's Botkin said. "We're still paying off debts from the last ballot fight."
This year unions again will promote initiatives that would protect their use of payroll deductions and offset Sizemore's proposals.
But this time, Sizemore predicts a different outcome.
"They outspent us 20-to-1 on Measure 59," Sizemore said. "Hopefully, they'll only outspend us 10-to-1 this time, and we'll win."
You can reach Steve Mayes at 503-221-8213 or stevemayes@news.oregonian.com.
Top of pagefrom OEA LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE:
June 15, 1999
In a close 16-14 vote today, the Senate approved SB 1181. The bill allows school boards to impose a cost parameter on employee compensation, based on an "allowable growth factor," which would be derived from economic indicators determined by the state. If a school district decides to make an offer based upon this still-undefined allowable growth factor, all bargaining ceases and language contained in the previous contract is retained. OEA opposes the measure because it assumes that bargaining agreements are the only factors driving budget costs and because of its devastating impact on the local bargaining process. Voting OEA’s position against the bill were Senators L. Beyer, Brown, Burdick, Castillo, Corcoran, Courtney, Dukes, Duncan, Gordly, Metsger, Miller, Shields, Trow and Wilde. Voting for the bill were Senators Adams, Bryant, Derfler, Ferrioli, Fisher, George, Hannon, Hartung, Lim, Nelson, Qutub, Shannon, Starr, Tarno, Timms, and Yih. The bill will now move to a House committee. In a letter to Senate President Brady Adams, Gov. Kitzhaber said he opposed the bill in its current form, despite the fact that he is sympathetic to the "need to better connect local school spending decisions with the availability of state revenue." He said he hopes to modify the bill when it reaches the House so that it is "not one focused merely on taking away school employees’ collective bargaining rights."
Although SB 1180, another bill to roll back teachers’ due process and collective bargaining rights, was also scheduled for Senate floor action today, the vote on it was delayed until Thursday. Please call your senator and urge a "no" vote on that bill, and thank those supporting OEA’s position on SB 1181.
*****
In a press conference Tuesday, legislative leadership unveiled its "blueprint" budget, which gives K-12 public schools less of an increase than any other line-item in the state budget. According to this plan, schools would receive $4.725 billion, plus $19 million in local property taxes exclusively for high-growth areas. The latter piece, from Rep. Strobeck’s HB 2982, stakes claim on the exception value of residential and commercial property in high-growth regions, and retains it for capital construction expenses for a ten-year period. All statewide stakeholders, including OSBA, OEA, and COSA, oppose the bill due to its impact to less economically vibrant school districts across the state.
A group of 19 or 20 legislators will meet daily, beginning June 16 at 4 p.m. to participate in the second biennial budget "summit" to settle the state funding puzzle. This group is reputed to include eight legislators who may be characterized as unsupportive of a higher schools budget, as well as eight others who may be friendlier to a sufficient appropriation level. Three moderate Republicans, broadly regarded as pro-education, may ultimately be key votes in this school funding fight.
*****
SB 722, which makes substantial changes to PERS, including establishment of a third tier of benefits and an employer opt-out provision, comes before the House Rules and Elections Committee, June 16 and 17. OEA agrees with those provisions of the bill that would provide relief for employers regarding rate increases, but the addition of a third tier of benefits and the opt-out provisions keeps OEA and other public employee unions from supporting it. If your state representative is one of the following, please call and urge a "no" vote on SB 722; Reps. Simmons, Devlin, Starr, Atkinson, Beck, R. Beyer, Edwards, Gardner, Mannix, Piercy, Welsh and Williams.
Another PERS related bill which OEA opposes, SB 723, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last Friday. It changes the composition of the PERS board, reducing the number of PERS member representatives on the panel and increasing public representation on the board. OEA opposes yet another change in the board’s composition on the grounds that various sectors of PERS members should be represented on the board.
*****
SB 428, Associated Oregon Industries’ bill to route public K-12 monies to private and public institutions of higher education for mandated early-entry program, is scheduled for a work session in the Education Subcommittee of Ways and Means on June 16. OEA opposes this bill because of its use of public money for private education and because it is an un-funded mandate that usurps local control. Districts may already offer early-entry programs at their option, where appropriate.
*****
HB 3444 has passed yet another hurdle on its way to becoming law. On June 14, a conference committee met to amend this school safety bill to include the use of school psychologists in the first-response options for dealing with students exhibiting violent tendencies or who seriously defile school property. This bill directs school districts to develop mental health policies that respond to such early indicators of violence with the hope of providing appropriate referrals for assessment and early intervention. The bill now moves to both floors for acceptance of the conference committee amendment. OEA recommends passage.
To reach your legislator or to request a copy of any bill, call one of the two following numbers: If you live inside the Salem area, call 986-1187. Elsewhere in the state, call (800) 332-2313. For more information about these bills and other legislation of interest, stay tuned to the hotline.
Top of pageNEA Resources | NEA Resolution | NEA Contact | State Affiliates | American Federation of Teachers | Education Week | U.S. Department of Education | Research on Class Size | Other Resources
Common sense. Common sense tells us that when classes are small, students can learn more. Proposals to reduce class size have become increasingly popular with educators, parents, and politicians; but research proves that the idea is more than just popular. Studies such as the large scale, longitudinal Student Teacher Achievement Ratio, or Project STAR (1990), the STAR Follow-Up Studies (pdf file) (1996-97), and Milwaukee's Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE), support what teachers have always known: small classes mean better education, at least at the K-3 level, and now a new wave of findings reveals that students in Project STAR's smaller classes continue to outperform their peers in larger classes. Transferring the research to practice without cutting corners has been tricky, however. The decision to reduce class size doesn't guarantee that qualified teachers and appropriate classrooms will be available, and policymakers face serious challenges presented by America's deteriorating school buildings and the growing shortage of quality teachers -- challenges that can undermine the potential benefits of smaller classes.
An expensive luxury? Even if smaller classes do make a difference in student achievement, are they worth the added expense? Opponents to class size reduction programs point to the cost of smaller classes. They claim that "throwing money" at schools isn't fiscally sound and predict that the main feature of policies to reduce class size will be an increase in schooling costs with no increase in student achievement. But statewide efforts in California and Nevada have had extremely positive response from parents and teachers, despite the added expense.
Class size matters. NEA supports an optimum class size of fifteen students in regular programs and a proportionately lower number in programs for students with exceptional needs. Teachers with small classes can spend time and energy on creative teaching, not on discipline and classroom management. They can quickly identify and work with students who experience learning difficulties, and they can provide more individualized instruction. When smaller classes in modernized schools are taught by qualified teachers, kids learn more. It's common sense, and what's more, the research backs it up.
Follow-up data on students in Tennessee's 1985-89 Project STAR shows that students who were in smaller classes are still out-scoring their counterparts academically. NEA Today's Inside Scoop "Small Classes Hold Long-Term Benefits" (March 1998) has more.
What are NEA affiliates doing to make schools work better for kids? Stepping Forward - Improving the Conditions of Schools: Class Size describes new unionism efforts in three states that have resulted in smaller classes in elementary schools.
Class Size Reduction, an NEA Legislative Brief, recommends the actions Congress should take to help reduce class size, especially in the lower grades.
"Smaller classes mean fewer discipline problems and, therefore, safer schools," argues NEA President Bob Chase in his column We Need a Little Class (April 13, 1997).
Site Map:
News |
SACT Calendar |
Officers & Info |
Members Only |
Issues |
Opinion |
Resources