Local education technology company LiveSchool has raised $1.65 million through an equity offering, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Nashville Capital Network led the round of funding.
LiveSchool offers a classroom management app to help teachers manage day-to-day classroom activities, such as tracking student behavior, contacting parents or issuing hall passes.
The charter school where I work has helped LiveSchool pilot this app. (Note: some other schools in our network use student management systems from other companies.) Several other charter schools in Nashville were also involved in the beta testing of LiveSchool. I'm not sure if the company has any client schools in the district, though I'm sure that will eventually come, if it hasn't happened already. Apps like this one that improve the flow of record-keeping and paperwork -- particularly in essential but mundane tasks like tracking demerits and hall passes -- make a big difference in managing a school. Student management systems aren't the type of reform that will be debated by the Tennessee legislature, but this is the type of nuts-and-bolts change that makes a difference in teaching kids. When data is more accessible, consistent, and easily visualized, teachers can do their jobs better. Matt is a smart guy and I hope this money helps the company refine the product and grow. It would be great if Nashville become not only a hub for innovative schools, but innovative educational technology, too. Note: neither I nor the network of schools where I work are formally endorsing LiveSchool. Just proud to see a cool business launch in Nashville.
This week, researchers reported that they can now image brains to diagnose CTE while people are alive. Previously, the only way to know if CTE caused a person depression, dementia, or suicidal tendencies was through an autopsy. Repeated concussions have been linked CTE. Ta-Nehisi Coates puts together a damning timeline on the NFL actions regarding concussions. Essentially, league executives have had a reason to suspect for quite some time that players were playing Russian roulette with their post-football lives, yet they told players differently. An excerpt:
2007 - An NFL safety pamphlet notifies players, "Current research with professional athletes has not shown that having more than one or two concussions leads to permanent problems if each injury is managed properly.
2009 - NFL spokesman Greg Aiello acknowledges, "It's quite obvious from the medical research that's been done that concussions can lead to long-term problems,
2009 - The NFL begins to put up posters in locker rooms that state, in part, "Concussions and conditions resulting from repeated brain injury can change your life and your family's life forever." "This is about Roger Goodell, that fraud, covering his own ass," says former defensive lineman Dave Pear.
In 2007, the NFL was still arguing that concussions wouldn't lead to serious problem? Surely they heard of what happened to these former players two years earlier:
2005 - In June, former Pittsburgh Steelers guard Terry Long commits suicide by drinking antifreeze. Neuropathologist Bennet Omalu later examines Long's brain and concludes he suffered from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. "People with chronic encephalopathy suffer from depression. The major depressive disorder may manifest as suicide attempts. Terry Long committed suicide due to the chronic traumatic encephalopathy due to his long-term play," Dr. Omalu tells the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "The NFL has been in denial."Steelers neurosurgeon Joseph Maroon says Omalu is employing "fallacious reasoning" saying "I don't think it's plausible at all ... to go back and say that he was depressed from playing in the NFL and that led to his death 14 years later, I think is purely speculative.
2005 - In July the peer-reviewed journal Neurosurgery prints Omalu's autopsy and brain analysis of "Iron" Mike Webster. Omalu concludes that Webster suffered from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.
I've enjoyed watching football for a long time, but now every time I see even a highlight on "SportsCenter" I just think about how guys are destroying their brains. Sure, they get glory, celebrity, and big paychecks, but ask the widow and children of Junior Seau if that's a tradeoff they'd make again. Even researchers find that it's only a relatively small number of former players affected, say 10 or 20 percent, it's still too much of a sacrifice for something driven primarily by people wanting something to watch on Sunday afternoons. And I'm a guy who grew up immersed in Southern football culture. I live a mile away from where the Titans play. I wonder how many other people are going to start feeling the same way? I mean, with the NFL, we're talking about a $9 billion business and that's without taking into account the massive media industry built around. For that matter, what about the cultural and financial impact of college football? When I read Seabiscuit, I learned that the major American spectator sports during the Depression were horse racing and boxing. History shows there's nothing guarantees that football will continue to dominate the modern sports landscape. Given all this, it looks like a Major League Soccer franchise would be a bargain investment.
MNPS Superintendent Jesse Register will be evaluated in a new way, per Joey Garrison at The Tennessean:
The Metro school board in the coming months is planning to overhaul the way it evaluates the director of schools’ performance annually to also include student outcomes — a move that is believed to be a first for the district. The change, to be a part of a larger still-undefined rubric, comes as the state is in the middle of its second year of teacher evaluations that factor in students’ test scores and growth.
This is an improvement. I don't wish to see Register lose his job or be humiliated by a poor review. A better evaluation process isn't about the person; it's about a position. This establishes a better practice of governance. As someone who thinks student outcomes matter most, it makes sense that part of an educator's evaluation should include how much their students grow. Though superintendents aren't in the classroom directly influencing students, they make decisions that profoundly influence how well students do over time. I'm also pleased to see who is chairing the relevant committee:
“There certainly is accountability at the teacher level and the principal level, and in many ways, this is no different,” said school board member Elissa Kim, who is heading the board’s director’s evaluation committee.
As I argued this summer, I can't think of a better person to chair a committee designing a fair and thorough evaluation. Having someone lead this who is familiar with best practices from districts and nonprofits across the country bodes well for good governance. Garrison describes the changes here:
Kim, who oversees evaluations routinely through her work as executive vice president of recruitment for Teach For America, said the existing criteria includes only “process steps” in which to hold the superintendent accountable: cost management, HR and people management and communications, among a list of several others.
Register, whose contract with Metro runs through 2015, supports the change in scoring, calling it “appropriate” to take student outcomes into account.
“The old evaluation was heavily process-oriented, and the new approach will be more balanced,” he said.
I have no idea if revamping the superintendent's review was in the works before the new board took office or if this is a new idea. I'm sure other members besides Kim have played a part in putting this together. For all involved, it's a step in the right direction.
"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." -- Barack Obama, 2002 Borrowing Obama's formulation, I don't think most teachers oppose testing. I think many oppose dumb testing. Some teachers in Seattle are rebelling against testing -- sort of. They're boycotting giving a second test to their students. (The students in question already take an state-mandated end of course exam in some classes. As best I can tell, this isn't controversial.) Jesse Hagopian, a teacher at Garfield High School (and a Teach for America alumnus**) pinpoints the chief issue:
Students don’t take the MAP seriously because they know their scores don’t factor into their grades or graduation status. They approach it less seriously each time they take it, so their scores decline. Our district uses MAP scores in teacher evaluations, even though the MAP company recommends against using it to evaluate teacher effectiveness and it’s not mandated in our union contract.
That is dumb testing. The more I read, this story seems less about whether testing is worthwhile and more of a tale of how an inane bureaucracy requires teachers to give a useless test. A letter from teachers at a Seattle elementary schools demonstrates why the test in questions is useless:
...the current version of the MAP test is aligned with the old state standards and it is clearly an unsuitable vehicle for evaluating students currently being taught the new required Common Core Standards. So not only are the results of little instructional value, but this discrepancy between what is taught and what is measured will yield falsely low scores making the MAP test invalid for the purpose of measuring student growth/teacher effectiveness.
(Emphasis mine.) The test that's the focus of the boycott is the MAP (Measures of Academic Progress). It's a national test, though I don't know if the testmakers adjust the questions to suit the standards of different states. As it happens, I can somewhat empathize with the Seattle teachers. My ninth graders have a similar testing regimen -- a state-mandated end of course test (EOC) and the MAP. The reason I'm OK with the kids also taking the MAP is because the data from it helps me do a better job. The MAP is something we chose to do as a school. We use it to track student progress throughout the year and make sure my students are on track to reach their desired ACT score. The MAP is taken three times a year on a computer and takes about an hour for most students to take a subject-specific test. Unlike the state-mandated tests, it offers a sophisticated breakdown of student growth and skill level. It's very useful in terms of knowing where a student is, how quickly they're making progress, and tweaking instruction to meet students. As we switch to Common Core standards -- which are more rigorous -- the data from the MAP will be even more relevant. It is, of course, worthless if teachers don't use the data. The information I get from it actually saves quite a bit of class and planning time because I don't need to design my own diagnostic test, nor do I have to crunch the raw data. It's helped me teach because we're more accurately diagnosing skill deficits. It's one thing to know a student isn't reading on grade level. It's much more useful to know that, say, a student struggles with differentiating between certain vowel sounds. With that sort of precision, we're able to conduct targeted reading interventions. When students take the MAP again, we track progress. In other words, this isn't testing for testing's sake. We use this stuff to help our kids become better readers. It's a simple goal, but not an easy one. Helping kids make strides is complicated. That's why so many kids fall behind in the first place. The idea of education is also simple, but not easy: everything a school does should help students learn. All tests, whether it's a ten-question vocabulary quiz or a state-mandated exam, are supposed to serve that goal. If the data from a test isn't meaningful, then what's the point in having students take it? As with so many things in education, poor execution sabotages a policy's intent. This seems like district leadership kept on adding testing systems without thinking through how it would play out in classrooms. The Seattle debate isn't about testing; it's about dumb testing. **** ** Read Hagopian's entire article. There's a persistent idea that TFA alumni don't have many different opinions about what ed reform should be. There's another one that many TFA alumni don't stay in the classroom. Both are false.
I've got a radical idea for improving schools. On paper, it won't cost more money. A bunch of schools are already doing it. Also, pretty much every other industry does this some form or fashion. So, as I said, radical by the standards of education policy. Here it is: District superintendents should allow principals to choose their staffs. We in Nashville are watching an example of how this could work right now. After a crappy season, Titans coach Mike Munchak is "reorganizing" his staff. That is, he's firing some people and hiring others. Several coaches were given no more explanation than "the team is going in a different direction." Among these is longtime special teams coach Alan Lowry, best known as the architect of the most famous play in team history, the Music City Miracle. It's not like Lowry forgot how to coach football this year. But his contract had expired and observers speculate that the special teams unit needed shaking up.
This never gets old.
Tennessean sports columnist David Climer criticized Munchak's moves, but then wrote the following:
While some of Munchak’s decisions may seem odd, let’s be clear: Considering his situation, he must be given complete freedom to adjust his coaching staff in whatever way he sees fit. His job is on the line, so he must be allowed to win or lose with the assistants of his choice. If he thinks he can upgrade his staff, so be it.
(Emphasis mine) So why does a football coach get the freedom to choose a staff, but many schools refuse to let their principals do the same? Back in my Philly days, I asked that question to a colleague. She looked at me as if I'd grown a third eye. "What would happen if a principal came in here and just cleaned house?" she asked, expecting that the answer was self-evident. Except that the particular school where I worked had been failing by every possible measure. We had the educational equivalent of a 2-14 season. If ever there was a school that was fit for a Indianapolis Colts-style makeover, this was it. Of course, school district management being what it is, the district fired the previous administration while staff stayed (unless they decided to leave of their own volition). This worked wonders in undermining most of the authority any administration would've had. Teachers could do the same thing they'd always done (admittedly a good thing in a few cases, but a recipe for repeating failure in most others). Whether a teacher was competent or not, none of us had reason to treat the new administration as anything other than the next group through the revolving door. I think I talked the principal five times during the entire year. Now I work in a charter school. If she wants, the principal can fire me. Is that likely to happen? No. There are lots of good reasons why principals, even ones who were new to a school, wouldn't want to fire the staff en masse. The point is that a school leader should get to choose of who works for them. There's quite a difference between saying that something would be a bad idea -- like firing an entire staff -- versus prohibiting someone from doing it. That difference is trust. And if a superintendent doesn't trust a principal, then why is that person allowed to lead a school? (I can see the eye-rolling from veteran teachers regarding that last point. Bear with me -- I'm talking about how things should be.) I know that there are some terrible principals out there. (In my stint there, I learned the hard way that the School District of Philadelphia was notorious for hiring them.) The solution for hiring poor principals, though, isn't to make sure that they're powerless to change much of anything. That sort of arrangement can (and does) repel a whole lot of competent candidates. As for what to do with bad principals? Hold them as accountable as, say, the typical NFL coach. If the Titans don't go the playoffs next year, everybody expects owner Bud Adams to fire Munchak. The same idea should be applied to principals. If they don't get results, replace them. Staff turnover is commonplace in other industries, particularly those were leadership is so closely aligned to performance. Indeed, school superintendents are held accountable for results even when they don't influence student achievement nearly as much as principals and teachers. We understand the principle of giving freedom to lead in exchange for accountability when it applies to sports. Why doesn't it seem to apply to so many of our schools?
Value-added data isn't new to Tennessee, but it has only been recently added as a part of a teacher's evaluation. As promised, I'll continue taking big ed reform ideas and discussing how they affect my life as a teacher. Chris Low, a teacher from KIPP Philly, tells a story that illustrates why value-added data is so important. Hewrites about a challenge faced by all of us who teach children who enter our classrooms several years behind grade level (Thanks to Matt Rubinstein for sending this my way):
There is a delicate balance at play in many Philadelphia schools. At the heart of the issue is the idea of expectations. How can teachers keep the bar high without giving in to the constant disillusionment of failed endeavors and unrealized goals? This past summer, during my training as a teaching fellow, my eyes were opened to the limitless potential of students unhindered by the boundaries of low expectations. For many Philadelphia students, the biggest barrier to success lies in the belief that great accomplishments are beyond their grasp. The goal of the teacher is to be a figure that pushes students past the limits of what they think they can do.
But it’s never that simple.
(Emphasis mine) When I was a reporter in Vicksburg, MS, I visited classrooms to get a sense of the day-to-day life of a teacher. The most common refrain from them was, "My kids come to me unprepared." I first heard this from a high school teacher, so I went to talk to a middle school teacher. She told me the same thing, so I talked to a 4th grade teacher. I got all the way to a kindergarten teacher who said, "You wouldn't believe how far behind the kids are when the start school." I had never considered that a child could be behind before they even started school, but it's true. I thought about how my parents had taught me how to read to before I started formal schooling. My friends who teach elementary school now tell me that most of their kids come in not knowing how to read. That needs to change. At the same time, we have to help the kids who are already in the system and below grade level. If kids are behind, they need schools and teachers that will help them catch up as much as humanly possible. The trick is, in this era of accountability in education, we also have to be fair to the teachers who teach those kids. This is why value-added scores are so important. Measuring the rate of progress a student makes in a year, no matter where they started from, is vital information. It's not the only way to measure achievement, to be sure, but it's an important piece of information. Kids should be recognized for making progress, not just hitting an absolute goal. I remember asking a friend who does marathons how he keeps going when he hits mile 16, is tired and frustrated, and still has 10 more miles to go. "Every step forward is a positive one," he replied. Even if some of our students aren't as far along as others, we still must have a way of showing them that they're taking positive steps. Low has similar thoughts:
When kids feel successful, they try harder. Like when I learned how to ride a bike. The bike I learned on happened to be a girl’s bike that was embarrassingly small. I felt ridiculous, but my dad celebrated my small achievement anyway. That feeling of success helped me find the courage to try on something a little more impressive, a bigger bike. My dad had lowered the handlebar, but as soon as I proved myself capable, he quietly slid that bar a little higher, and I was back to reaching again. I’m learning how to do that for my students.
Apart from being used to build a student's confidence, value-added data is critical information for teachers to have about their classes as a whole. We in Tennessee are lucky to have a value-added system (TVAAS) in place. It's doesn't offer a complete picture of a student, mainly because the tests themselves are blunt instruments, but it's miles ahead of what was available when I taught in Philadelphia's public schools. Among other things, I use value-added data to adjust my lessons to the needs of the class as a whole and target specific students' learning needs. It also saves me weeks of time in diagnosing students, as well as providing a baseline I can use to chart progress throughout the year. Still, though, when I attended the Tennessee Council of Teachers of English conference a few months ago, I heard skepticism about value-added scores being used in evaluations. My fellow English teachers wondered about the swings in data they saw from year to year. They were also concerned about over-emphasizing the results of a single test. I share some of their concerns and think that the system needs tweaking, but that doesn't mean it should be junked entirely, as I've heard advocated by critics. In many education debates, we set up a false dichotomy between something being perfect or not having it at all. Conversations about education will be a lot more productive when we acknowledge that our systems are much like our students: not yet where we want them to be, but making progress towards getting there. The reality is that many students enter a given classroom below grade level. We can and should have many other discussions regarding how to change that. In the meantime, the idea is to accelerate a student's improvement. Value-added data helps us accurately measure that growth.
There's often a gulf between how ed reform ideas look on paper and how those ideas play out at the classroom level. In other news, sugar tastes good and the Cubs won't win the World Series this year. So I'm going to be discussing over the next few posts how some of the big reform pieces have affected my classroom. I'll start with an update about how Tennessee's new teacher evaluations impact me. The headline is that the new evaluation process significantly improved my teaching. I've been evaluated by the old system in a district school and the new system in a charter school. I got better scores on the former; the latter was more honest and actually helped me do my job better.
That's due to both the rigorous rubric and how the dean of instruction at my school scrupulously implemented it. Sure, I could quibble with a few details, but the process as a whole is solid. It's impossible to construct an evaluation process that leaves everybody happy. Given the purposes of evaluation, it's going to bruise egos. Mine certainly was -- and that's a good thing for both myself and my students.
"If there's anything more important than my ego on this ship,
I want it caught and shot right now."
***
Teaching is, above all else, a skill. As such, it requires an outsider's perspective to polish it. I can't think of a skill -- throwing a football, playing the piano, cooking a soufflé -- in which coaching isn't necessary. But the process of coaching isn't easy because nobody likes to be told they aren't doing something well. The process is even harder if, like me, you've taught for several years and are used to running class a certain way. The thing is, the feedback that I got was in no way earthshaking. She wanted me to improve the depth of my questioning. It wasn't rejiggering my classroom setup or chucking out huge parts of my classroom. It's just a seemingly small technique that's easy to overlook during the day-to-day grind of teaching. It has also made a significant difference. Before the evaluation, I knew my classroom culture needed a jolt. Students were doing the assignments that I asked, but quiz results showed they weren't absorbing knowledge at the rate they needed to do so. When teaching students that are several years behind, there's an impetus to learn quickly. Time is an enemy. In the classes following my evaluation, I paid more attention to asking questions. This meant slowing down class and scheduling fewer activities, but staying with those activities for a longer time. Some students hesitated when being asked to show deeper levels of knowledge. We didn't exactly produce material for an inspirational montage, á laFreedom Writers. There was, however, improvement in ways measurable and not. Sure, my pride took a minor hit when the problem was identified and most kids were caught off-guard when pushed to explain and analyze in new ways, but it helped them learn. That's why the taxpayers are paying me. A rigorous evaluation engenders some anxiety. I was more than a little nervous on the day of mine. The bottom line, though, is that it's a reasonable process and necessary to actually improving the delivery of instruction. If done correctly, it shouldn't be comfortable. It will, however, help with teaching the kiddos.
