The (all-time winningest) football coach who didn't yell

One of the greatest coaches in college football history died a few weeks ago. You probably didn’t know about it.

John Gagliardi is the all-time winningest coach in college football history. That’s right — more than Nick Saban, Woody Hayes, Bear Bryant, and Joe Paterno. During his six-decade career, he won 75 percent of his games, 30 division championships, and four national titles, mostly at Division-III St. John’s University in Minnesota. (The coach who preceded him in the job said, “Nobody can win at St. John’s.”)

Gagliardi did this while:

• Never yelling at players
• Never using a whistle during practice
• Never cutting a player
• Never having a playbook and only minimal film study
• Allowing players as many water breaks as they wanted (he started this in 1940s, mind you) 
• Limiting practices to no longer than 90 minutes and banning tackling during practices
• Eliminating hazing rituals (again, this man started coaching football during the Roosevelt Administration)

He was a coach since age 16 when his high school coach was drafted to serve in World War II. His teammates asked him to coach and he proceeding to eliminate all the parts of practice he hated. He coached his high school team for the next six years with the school paying his tuition at Colorado College.

This part of his career is fascinating to me. In the Hollywood version of this type of story, of course it makes sense that the gifted player leads his teammates to victory simply by not doing all of the stuff they don’t like doing. The reality is that usually the stuff teenagers don’t like doing is the exact things they need to practice. Think running wind sprints or, on the academic side, writing and re-writing essays in English class.

Since I’ve spent quite a bit of time attempting to motivate sixteen-year-olds, Gagliardi’s early success is all the more remarkable to me. Usually if you leave teenagers to their own devices, it’s not going to turn out well. Whether it’s a classroom or a team, divisions are likely to emerge and would-be leaders (understandably) don’t yet know how to lead an entire group. Teaching is more a learned skill than an innate one and it takes some years to even achieve proficiency. Gagliardi seems to be the Yo-Yo Ma type of prodigy — gifted at the start, then able to build on early mastery.

The other that strikes me is Gagliardi's instinct for doing obvious things that were 180 degrees from what most of his coaching peers were doing. The thing about never yelling at players really sticks out. A lot of modern research on leadership shows that people are likely to learn more efficiently in a calm environment. (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow is worth checking out on this and related topics.)  

Findings like that aren't surprising, so it's striking how often coaches and teachers still — on purpose, mind you — yell to make a point. Tell me a time you performed better when someone was screaming at you. Nevertheless, the myth of yelling endures — just tune into your local sports talk radio on pretty much any day. You’ll hear caller after caller say that what really needs to happen to fix ________ team is that the coach essentially just needs to "get tough" — i.e. yell more.

***

Another thing about the implications of Gagliardi's lifetime of work is this: Gagliardi plied his craft for decades, won early and often, has a legion of adoring alumni, and seems to have influenced pretty much none of his fellow coaches in any significant way. 

Instead, as his career started around the same time as Bear Bryant's and stretched well into Nick Saban's time, the latter two, with their dour demeanors and aggressive-even-by-football-standards approach ("Gotta be more physical!"), are considered the gold standard of football coaching.

This makes me consider: how many other popular assumptions about coaching and teaching are off the mark? Could Bear Bryant had won even more if he hadn't had such brutal practices? If Nick Saban didn't yell, would he be even more successful? 

To be more personal: what if some techniques I've been doing most of my career are kind of ineffective and the reason no one notices is that most everyone else's techniques are pretty ineffective, too?

I mean, I think I know some stuff that works. My students have done well by many measures. I don't yell at kids or do a lot of old school stuff. But still. Are there breakthroughs to be had in transferring skills and knowledge to young people? 

Is there another John Gagliardi out there?

A school's wraparound services are wonderful, necessary, and shouldn't be confused with teaching

A few assorted thoughts before I get to the point of this post:

- Wealthy people spending money to help at-risk kids get a better education is a Good Thing. 

- Wealthy people focusing education philanthropy on young kids instead of, say, funding a fancy collegiate athletic facility is also a Good Thing.

- It is astonishing that LeBron James has such a sterling reputation despite being in the spotlight since middle school, contending with God knows how many people attempting to profit off of his talent, plus handling the various pressures a world-class professional athlete faces, AND raising a family. The only minor public misstep he's made was a tone-deaf television special when he was 26. I made all sorts of dumb decisions when I was 26. Thankfully, none were broadcast on ESPN.

***
I wanted to expand on comments I made in response to some questions about the Akron public school LeBron James funded (and is providing some ongoing operations cash).

The school, called iPromise, is a regular public school in Akron. It's charter-ish in a couple of ways. It's a selective school, though not in the way "selective" is commonly known. Kids who are a year or two behind are eligible to attend. Also, the Akron school board has given permission for the school to have a longer school day, some additional staff, and some summer sessions. Classes are limited to 20 students, which is smaller than most public schools (traditional and charter), though slightly larger than most private schools. There's also some social-emotional support programs that, at first glance, seem similar to best practices piloted by Nashville-based charter Valor Collegiate Academies. (Full disclosure: I used to teach there before I was hired as an administrator at another school.)

To ensure long-term opportunities, James has partnered with the University of Akron to underwrite the students' tuition if they complete the middle school program and choose to attend U of A. 

***

In addition to what's above, the iPromise' school's "wraparound services" have garnered a lot of press. I follow school news pretty closely so I've heard the term in a variety of contexts. Sometimes it's by charter advocates when a new school is being proposed. On the opposite end, I've heard from folks who are trying to turn around a persistently struggling school-board controlled school (usually before the state or district begins action to shut the school down). The most frequent use is a sort of hand-waving from people who argue that additional wraparound services are what's needed to improve a given school's mediocre academics. 

Because the term is vague and sounds nice, it gets tossed around by people advocating for a bunch of different ed policies. So, let's break down what should and shouldn't be expected of wraparound services.

First, a better definition and some stipulations: 
1) In most cases, wraparound services focused on students are: school counseling, school-based social workers, after-school childcare, and some basic health care. 
2) All of these services are great and necessary. 
3) Every school needs more of them.
4) The outcomes of these services are notoriously hard to measure.
5) The best result of most services is when they help mitigate reasons why a student wouldn't be able to fully participate in a class. 
6) Providers of wraparound services can a do a terrific job with a kid and that student will still likely exhibit some significant challenges -- low grades, behavior issues, inconsistent attendance, etc. 

What I want to shout any time I read articles that describe a school's wraparound services but say little about a school's instruction: Wraparound services should not be confused with the main purpose of any school: teaching kids.

At different junctures in my career, I oversaw some wraparound services at a few different schools. I can say that nearly every counselor and social worker with whom I've worked has gone above and beyond to provide care beyond their job description. (Even then, some students have needs that exceed a school's capacity to meet. This could be where, for example, specialized schools or inpatient treatment programs come in.)

But even at their best, counselors shouldn't have to shoulder a teacher's responsibility. Sometimes it's a victory for a student to be present at school and doing just enough to pass a class.

Once a kid is in class, the overwhelming factor in determining how a student does is the teacher. From there, the major factors in ensuring a teacher does her/his job well are the leadership, instructional coaching, and culture of the school. (I'm simplifying a lot here. Scores of books have been written on what it takes to do each of those factors well and, even then, I've never seen or worked in a school that has it completely figured out.)

So, a school could have the greatest wraparound services in the world, but if the school's focus isn't on instruction, then the school isn't fulfilling its mission. 

The cool thing about education is that when another school succeeds, it's good for everyone. School achievement is the opposite of a zero-sum game. I'm rooting for the iPromise school because it could improve the lives of thousands of Akron kids over the years. Kudos to James for providing startup funding and ongoing support**. 

Just keep in mind that the main -- though not only -- determinant of success will be the factor that's gotten the least media attention: the teachers and administrators doing the work of teaching the kids. 

**I've read some criticisms of James because he isn't funding the whole thing. Ohio law sets limits on how much a private citizen can fund a public school.

'Which Side are You On?'

A couple of folks asked me for my opinion on Betsy DeVos as education secretary. 

My response is that anyone who is willing to work for this administration has disqualified herself from being worthy of it.

To wit: if a person is willing to go to work for Trump, he or she doesn't have either 

1) the values to use the ed secretary's bully pulpit to push against the inequality endemic in public education or 

2) the spine to stand up against the bigotry necessary to do so.

The Secretary of Education has some formal power and a lot of informal influence. If DeVos is willing to compromise herself in to order to have the title, she's kneecapped herself in actually exercising the influence. 

That sort of influence comes from moral authority. In saying yes to Trump, you give up your claim to that sort of power. 

***

Of course, the argument goes, someone's got to be the secretary. It might as well be the best person possible. 

In a normal circumstances, sure. A secretary appointed by a Republican will be on one end of a range of views; a Democratic secretary will be on the other end. Ideally, I'd want someone who is willing to push on holding schools accountable, offer flexibility on licensing, and hold for-profit groups in check, to name a few (of many) things I personally care about. 

I agree with DeVos on a few issues, disagree with many more, and don't know about a lot of stuff because she's mostly been a philanthropist and behind-the-scenes player.

Elections have consequences and I'm OK with leaders who go in very different directions. I'm OK with DeVos's nontraditional résumé for the role. Such is the reality of our democracy. 

In these times, though, values come before before policy. Specifically, who one is willing to work for reveals a lot of about that person's values. 

Trump represents a series of values -- bigotry, cruelty, authoritarianism, irrationality, to name a few -- that run counter to the American idea. When history calls us to account for this era, the refrain will be the same as the labor and civil rights song "Which Side are You On?"

We haven't judged kindly those who took nuanced views on integrating schools, buses, and lunch counters in South. Working for George Wallace or Ross Barnett was a stain that has only looked worse with time. John Lewis took a side against them and the system they represented. 

Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017

mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017

"All talk, talk, talk - no action or results."

One cannot truly value the idea of our public schools as the door the American dream for all and also be OK with Trump.

***

There is a time for nuance. There's a time for working with those whom you vehemently disagree. That's a necessary part of making this country work.

There's also a time for just taking a side. 

Everything we know right now about Trump says opposition is the only moral option.

Betsy DeVos's choice reveled where her values really are. The things Donald Trump said and did over many years -- and especially during his campaign -- did not disqualify him, in her eyes, from the presidency. 

Therefore, she is unfit to serve as the figurehead leader of American public education. 

Outcome-based evaluations for all!

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. 

The value-add of value-added data

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. He writes 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.

Assigned reading

Your assigned reading:

Andy Rotherham on "Why Chicago Matters"

 In practice the city gave a lot of ground on key issues to get kids back in school. Sure, in 2014 thirty percent of teachers evaluations will be based on how much students learn. But that’s state law in Illinois! It’s illegal for the contract to do less. Evaluation results will not be especially consequential anyway. Mediocre teachers can keep their jobs year after year and the great teachers in Chicago will not be protected during layoffs, which will still be determined largely based on seniority rather than effectiveness. It’s unclear meanwhile how the city is going to afford the 17 percent raise it committed to – especially at the same time Chicago’s teacher pension fund is nearing insolvency.  The city won on some issues, too, by protecting principal autonomy and maintaining a sensible policy on guaranteed jobs when there are layoffs because of the downsizing everyone can see coming. But, overall it’s hard to see the agreement as anything but a substantial victory for Lewis and one that will resonate far beyond Chicago.

Robert Pondiscio on "Hobson's Choice" 

  It would be ironic to be in the business of education and have little faith in parents’ ability to make an informed choice—or to correct course if that choice proved untenable.  My personal bottom line, speaking only for myself, is that choice is an intrinsic good.  I like exercising school choice for my child and I want you to have the same options.  And let’s face it, education is fundamentally coercive: you have to educate your child.  Some latitude in how you go about it is to be encouraged. 

Dana Goldstein on David Colman as "The Schoolmaster"

But what has proved most controversial is Coleman’s unilateral vision for American students, of college as the goal and a college-prep curriculum as the means. In public education, a new reform is always coming down the pike. Longtime educators develop a healthy cynicism about which grand policy ideas will trickle down to classrooms and which will sputter during implementation or simply go out of fashion. But David Coleman’s ideas are not just another wonkish trend. They have been adopted by almost every state, and over the next few years, they will substantively change what goes on in many American classrooms. Soon, as Coleman steps into his new position as the head of the College Board, they may also affect who applies to college and how applicants are evaluated. David Coleman’s ideas, for better or worse, are transforming American education as we know it. 

The importance of the mundane

Sorry for the hiatus -- I still haven't mastered this whole "teach, blog, and have a life" thing. Not that I haven't been writing. I just find that many of the things I've written but not published are half-formed ideas or fully-formed duds.

No promises about what I do publish, either.

Anyway, a vignette from today and the realization it inspired:

******

I've started directing a play after school with a cast consisting of students from the charter school where I teach and a district school. They've got a stage; I like directing, so it works out. It's a good group of kids. They get along with each other and are committed to doing the amount of work it takes to put on a play. As a director, I can't ask for more.

They often talk about the differences between their respective schools. I note that aside from its use as an adjective, the word "charter" is rarely mentioned. Their focus is on more mundane matters like: 

"The lockers in this (district) school are really big."

"Really?"

"Yeah, we have these little cubbies in our classrooms."

"Like an elementary school?"

"Well, our school used to be one."

"Is your school small?"

"Yeah, kind of. But it's not an elementary school."

That was the end of the analysis of the differences between a charter and a district school.

Just another reminder that on a practical level, kids don't care about too much about these macro ed policy fights. They're more concerned with stuff like who their teachers are, how much work the teachers assign, and if the school offers the extracurricular activity they like. And, oh yes, where they'll put their stuff during the day. On a deeper level, of course kids pick up on academic rigor and school culture, but the average kid will struggle to articulate it. 

This isn't to say the big policy fights don't matter; they do. It's just that it's so easy to lose sight of how children perceive schools. 

It's up to adults, of course, to shape a student's perception. However, all of us in this education game still, in the end, must operate within that perception. 

In other words, the final question of every ed policy decision should be how this impacts students on a day-to-day level. 

*****

On a different note, this is a good time to plug the clip of my dream high school play, courtesy of Rushmore. 

Why, yes, it is on my bucket list to direct a play that requires pyrotechnics and outfitting a student with a flamethrower.

"Also, you'll find a pair of safety glasses and earplugs beneath your seats. Please feel free to use them."

Luck and the purposes of public education

Education reporter Peter Merrow is making a lot of sense: 

Are are we also polarized about the purposes of public education? I am not sure whether we are polarized, indifferent or excluded from the conversation, but we have a real problem. The goal of school is to help grow American citizens. Four key words: help, grow, American, citizen. Think about those words:

Help: Schools are junior partners in education. They are to help families, the principal educators.

Grow: It’s a process, sometimes two steps forward, one back. Education is akin to a family business, not a publicly traded stock company that lives and dies by quarterly reports.

American: E Pluribus Unum. We are Americans, first and foremost.

Citizen: Let’s put some flesh on that term. What do we want our children to be as adults? Good parents and neighbors, thoughtful voters, reliable workers? What else?

Merrow hits a lot of good points in the whole article. You should read the whole thing. I don't disagree with anything he wrote above. That said, I've got some footnotes about the role of luck and what public schools can do about it. 

 On "Help": Schools aren't going to take the place of families. However, we are charged with educating the students we have. These kids -- through no fault of their own -- may come from broken families, from impoverished households, from parents working two or more jobs, from caregivers who value education but were never able to acquire one themselves. As a result, we have two options: 

Option #1: We can shift into blame mode. We can search around for a villain -- poverty, parents, politicians -- and talk about how educators can't really do anything until that villain goes away. 

Option #2: We can do the best we can to compensate. For kids who lack stability at home, school can be an oasis of calm. Teachers can't replace parents, but I see every day the power of a school where each child is known by each adult. I've also worked in schools where that didn't happen. Anonymity is the first step towards falling through the cracks. 

On "Grow": Merrow is exactly right. The only thing I'd add is that we should have multiple measures, subjective and objective, to chart the "two steps forward, one back." As the fifth norm on a poster in my classroom states: "It's OK to make mistakes as long as you learn from them." In my experience, the difference between functional and dysfunctional schools is that the former uses data to pinpoint where the mistakes are, then does something about them. The latter does neither. 

Accountability isn't the enemy. It's the inertia that results in its absence. 

On "Americans": I agree one hundred percent. Our schools are the fuel of our democracy. This is one of many reasons that I agree with both Michelle Rhee and Diane Ravitch -- teaching should be a top-tier profession in the U.S. and teachers should be compensated as such.

** As Basher in Ocean's 13 asked, "Do you know what Chuck Berry said every night before counting 1, 2, 3, 4?"

 

On "Citizens": My only addition to Merrow's list is that our schools should help each child reach his or her full potential. The tricky thing about teaching is that it's impossible to know what that is. Thank God that my future wasn't based on what I did as a 14-year-old. (The Fifth Amendment excuses me from giving details about this and, hopefully, my parents have forgiven and forgotten. Or at least, forgiven.) 

Now, as a teacher of 14-year-olds, I have to balance holding students to high expectations and being understanding as they inevitably fall short some of those expectations. We teachers can't hold a grudge, even with the kids who require near-constant coaching.

The problem is that for too many kids, particularly those trying to break out of poverty, the mistakes they make as adolescents haunt them for the rest of their lives. This, to me, is the worst thing about poverty in the United States -- it's life with not much of a safety net. 

To create the citizens we want to have, it's incumbent on us -- especially those of us born into stable families, secure incomes, and a predictable path to an education -- to use those privileges to help others who weren't so lucky. 

Because that's the thing -- luck plays a bigger role than it should in determining whether a child becomes who he or she is capable of being. 

Luck decides who a kid's parents are, but the the idea behind public education -- beyond facilitating the development of "good parents and neighbors, thoughtful voters, reliable workers" -- should be to offer a children an opportunity and a choice to determine who they'll be. 

Public education will never entirely compensate for the advantages and disadvantages of who one's parents are. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't do a much better job than we're doing now.   

Ed Kindall & blaming low-income students

One more thing from that Tennessean article about the state's average ACT scores and the achievement gaps it revealed:

“The gap is there [between black and white students], and there’s never going to be improvement unless we look at the reasons,” said Ed Kindall, outgoing Metro Nashville Public Schools board member . 

Kindall thinks one issue could be motivation. “How do we motivate children to look at education as a way to get out of poverty?” he asked.

(The brackets are mine.)

I don't agree with Kindall on much, but I grant the following:

• He knows what life in segregated Nashville was like. I'm sure he has vivid memories of a time when black children were explicitly told what they could -- and more often, what they couldn't -- do.

• I'm sure he knows all too well what systemic racism has done to the education of generations of minority students.

• Kindall has a deep knowledge and experience of racism in a way that I will never know and cannot viscerally understand. That I am deeply empathetic and have dedicated my professional life to helping take down the barriers erected by decades of discrimination isn't enough; there's no substitute for experience.

So when he says things like this about the achievement gap shown on ACT average scores, I'm not so much angry as confused. Surely Kindall knows the students I teach. He visits their schools, talks to them at church, and sees them at the grocery store. Surely he knows that low-income students lack a lot of things, but a desire to get out of poverty isn't one of them. Surely he doesn't think the 2,880 students who graduated from MNPS in 2011 with ACT scores below 21 did so because of lack of motivation.

I've helped hundreds of low-income students in Nashville prepare to take the ACT. One thing I can say is that they don't lack the desire to do well. What most of the students lacked is the skill level -- not the raw intelligence or potential, mind you, but skill level -- necessary to get the score they wanted. This is the result of a public education system that has systemically failed to develop those skills.

 Contra Kindall, most students know exactly what their ticket out of poverty is. When I taught in an MNPS district high school, I remember counseling my 11th graders when their ACT scores came back. I watched more than few kids cry. Saying that our kids don't want to do well on the ACT is simply false.

And, for the moment, let's put aside the typical "blame the parents" riposte I see so often in these sorts of debates. If you'd like hold kids accountable for a choice they didn't make -- who their parents would be -- then you miss the entire point of public education. Also, you're reading the wrong blog.

Instead, let's focus the significant impact we can make. Namely, the quality of a school (and school district) matters. One proof point: a RAND study showed that Chicago's 5-12 charter schools (which are non-selective) "produce substantial positive effects on ACT scores."

If you're one of those people who reflexively dismiss data showing success in charter schools, here's a district-level example: the Broad Prize-winning Gwinnett County Schools in Georgia (which is very racially diverse, has a 50 percent free/reduced price lunch student population, and is almost twice the size of MNPS) was able to narrow achievement gaps and average a 22.3 on the ACT. The racial breakdowns, while still showing gaps, show much more progress than what we've seen in Nashville: black students - 19.2, Latino students - 20.7, white students - 24.0. While Georgia doesn't require all students to take the ACT, Gwinnett has high participation rates. Also, state-specific tests given to Gwinnett students have shown similar results in increasing achievement and closing gaps.

The point is that the quality of a school and school district can make a difference on college-readiness. What we control as voters, public servants, and educators can make a significant, positive impact on the prospects for low-income and minority students.

Kindall wants to look at the reasons for why there's an achievement gap and why low-income and minority students aren't scoring well on the ACT. But if most of our students do, in fact, have the motivation to do well and other schools and districts have shown success in getting poor and minority students to increase achievement and close gaps, then we must look at other reasons. Of course, all of those other reasons put the responsibility squarely on the adults who set up and run the public education system we have.

Ed Kindall knows exactly how a system can, for decades, deny poor and minority students the opportunities to achieve their potential. He also served on the Nashville school board for more than 20 years. Few people have had more influence on how the modern MNPS educates poor and minority students.

And at the end of his time on the board, he's blaming the kids for not being college-ready?

ACT: What it does (and doesn't) show

Tennessee's ACT average was released a few days ago. From Lisa Fingeroot at The Tennessean: 

Just 16 percent of Tennessee’s 2012 graduating seniors were fully prepared for college, according to a report released today by ACT, the organization that sponsors the college admissions test of the same name.

Tennessee's average was an 19.7, which was improvement from last year's 19.5. (Metro Nashville Public Schools averaged an 18.4, up for last year's 18.1) We also beat Mississippi, thereby causing a passel of Tennessee public officials to once again say, "Thank God for Mississippi."

(Is this a good time to mention I'm a product of Mississippi public education, kindergarten to college?)

A few thoughts on this:

• ACT is the most useful indicator we have for determining if schools, districts, and states are doing their jobs. A 21 average is considered the standard for telling if a student is likely to not only go to college, but graduate. The ACT isn't perfect, (see my analysis of the test below) but it's the best data we have.

• Of all the data we have on the achievement gap, the statistics below best illustrate how stark the gap is, as well as the importance of closing it. From the same article:

The 2012 scores “highlight the necessity for Tennessee to increase college readiness among certain racial minorities,” Huffman said. “Only 3 percent of black students and 9 percent of Hispanic students met college benchmarks in all four core subjects, compared to 18 percent of white students and 31 percent of Asian students.”

•  The ACT is more useful in evaluating an entire district's level of instruction, as opposed to just a high school. It tests skills that started forming years before a students becomes an 11th grader and can't easily be made up in a single year, or even several years. Where this comes in to sharp relief are the timed reading sections -- most high schools aren't set up to provide the remedial reading instruction to truly build a student's ability to blaze through the passages and have a decent understand as to what they read. 

• I've heard this qualification trotted out as an excuse in some quarters:

Tennessee is one of a handful of states where 100 percent of seniors took the ACT last year. The others are Mississippi, Colorado, Kentucky, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota and Wyoming.

Making hay out of the fact that in some states, the testing population consists of more self-selected college-bound students, misses the point. First, Tennessee finished second-to-last on the "100-percent" list, too. Second, until we're averaging a 21, we can't say that our system is where it should be. Comparative rankings are interesting, but this is a test where absolute achievement matters. A 21 average is a strong indicator that a school system is doing what it's supposed to do -- prepare the median student for success at the next level. That's why MNPS -- and most other districts -- set a 21 average as the goal. 

• Breaking down the scores, we see some more red flags:

In English, 59 percent of graduating seniors were considered by ACT to be ready for college-level work — up one percentage point from the previous year.
However, the majority of students were not ready for college in the other three subjects tested by the ACT, even though scores improved slightly in each area.
In reading, 43 percent were considered ready for college; in math, 29 percent; and in science, 21 percent.

The number of students who are college-ready in math, especially given that the section is "highly predictive" of collegiate success, is particularly troubling.

****

The ACT has its flaws. (As does the SAT, but for the purposes of this post, I'm focusing on the ACT.) My issue with the ACT is that it's a timed test. Not only that, but it's a tightly timed test. A test-taker must answer at a brisk pace to have a shot at giving each question its due.  As someone who did well on the ACT, I never got any sort of advantage from my ability to read quickly in my college and working life. I get the purpose from a test-maker's point of view -- it's testing for a certain kind of intelligence and preparation. I just think those particular types of preparation and intelligence have limited applications beyond college-admission exams. 

There's some scholarly agreement on this, as a National Bureau of Economic Research study found that the Science and Reading subsections "have 'little or no' ability to help colleges predict whether applicants will succeed." The English and Math subsections, however, "are 'highly predictive' of college success."

ACT argues that the test has several purposes beyond predicting college success:

Jon Erickson, interim president of ACT's Education Division, made several points via an e-mail. He noted that the ACT is used "for multiple goals and purposes beyond just admissions or predicting overall student success." For example, it is used in course placement, and he said that the ACT has been "quite accurate" in that function

Not all high-stakes tests have a timed requirement, either. None of Tennessee's high school End of Course exams are timed. (Oddly, the elementary and middle school TCAP tests are timed. You tell me if you understand the logic behind the decision to time kids in middle school, but let them take a full school day, if they want, in high school.)

The thing is, I spend a lot of time teaching my students to slow down, to be patient* with a text. Every day I preach about the virtues of reading an article, story or a poem several times. "How many of you remember the name and face every person you meet the first time you see them?" I ask my ninth graders. No one raises their hands. "Exactly," I say. 

Being patient, learning to take time to think deeply about the meaning of something, is a skill that's useful in both college and real life. It's also a skill that is just as difficult to teach as is teaching a kid to read quickly and identify key parts of a passage. I've never understood why college-admissions tests value the latter at the expense of the former. 

All that said, the ACT is still useful for what it is -- a well-written test taken by tens of thousands of students. It's also among the most researched tests in the world, so even with its limitations and caveats, we get lots of useful data. Finally, until Common Core is fully implemented, it's also the closest thing we have to national standards. It's a worthy measuring stick for students and educators, though, as with all things used for evaluation, it shouldn't be the only tool used. 

As I've told hundreds of nervous high school students over the years, "You don't have to like the game, but you need to learn how to play it."

* Convincing 14-year-olds to be patient and thorough also provides an opportunity for me to teach the kiddos about the meaning of the allusion sisyphean.

One reason Common Core is a good thing

A former student once told me that he'd lived in five states since kindergarten. While that's a high number, he wasn't the only student I've ever known who had done that.

I'll grant that while students who've lived in three or more states are unusual, students going back and forth between states isn't. At least, it's not so unusual that it wouldn't affect academic outcomes for a decent number of students.

It's hard to get data on this specific issue because data tracking students making intra-district moves in a school gets lumped into data tracking students moving state-to-state. Regardless, the general facts on student mobility are sobering. From a 1994 U.S. General Accounting Office study -- and it's a safe assumption that the mobility rate has only increased since then: (Hat tip Hoover Institution)

• About 17 percent of all third graders—more than a half million—have changed schools frequently.
• More than 24 percent of third graders have attended two schools since the first grade.
• Of third graders from low-income families (incomes below $10,000), 30 percent have changed schools frequently, compared with approximately 10 percent from families with incomes of $25,000–$49,000 and 8 percent of children in families with incomes of $50,000 or more
• About 25 percent of third graders in inner-city schools have changed schools frequently, compared with about 15 percent of third graders in rural or suburban schools.

And it damages achievement:

• Overall, third graders who have changed schools frequently are two and a half times as likely to repeat a grade as third graders who have never changed schools (20 versus 8 percent).
• For all income groups, children who have changed schools frequently are more likely to repeat a grade than children who have never changed schools.
• Children who changed schools four or more times by the eighth grade were at least four times more likely to drop out than those who remained in the same school; this is true even after taking into account the socioeconomic status of a child’s family.

Moving from school to school within a district is something that could be addressed by policy. Students moving from state to state is another challenge altogether. It seems to me that the best solution is to make the academic transition as smooth as possible. Hence the need for grade-level expectations to be as consistent as possible from district-to-district and state-to-state. 

Of course, not all agree. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley sees, in the words of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, "a conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy."

From USA Today:

"Just as we should not relinquish control of education to the Federal government," [Haley] wrote in a letter to a state lawmaker, "neither should we cede it to the consensus of other states."

With an education system ranked dead last in achievement, God forbid that South Carolina learn anything from other states. 

And, of course, if Arne Duncan is in favor of something, then Diane Ravitch opposes it. From the same USA Today article:

Last month, New York University education historian Diane Ravitch, a vocal Duncan critic, blasted the standards, writing in The New York Review of Books that they've never been field-tested. "No one knows whether these standards are good or bad, whether they will improve academic achievement or widen the achievement gap," she said.

A question for Ravitch: How will decreasing the differences between academic expectations state-to-state widen the achievement gap? 

I could see a problem if Common Core standards were less rigorous than the typical set of state standards, but they don't seem to be. I'm spending the year moving from Tennessee English I standards to Common Core. The latter are tougher -- which is a good thing. I'm also familiar with English I standards in Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and Texas** -- Common Core seems to be a step up for all of them. 

That aside, I suspect that some of the real winners will be these students who have high mobility rates, particularly those who change districts.

After all, does anyone envision a future where families less frequently move from city to city?

**During the past few years, I've spent more time than I'd care to admit perusing different states' standardized tests. It's yet another one of my nerdy hobbies. 

Part 3: Ravitch vs. Rhee -- Who's the real idealist?

Here's the final installment of my critique of Diane Ravitch's CNN article on Michelle Rhee and ed reform in general. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. 

*****
Ravitch:

Rhee believes in merit pay but she is unaware that merit pay has been tried again and again for nearly a century. It has never worked. It failed recently in New York City, Chicago, and Nashville. In Nashville, teachers were offered a $15,000 bonus to raise test scores. It didn’t make a difference. 

Merit pay comes in a lot of shapes and sizes. In this particular interview, Rhee talked about differentiated merit pay: paying high-performing teachers what they're worth, much in the same what that the best players on pro sports teams command the highest salaries. She -- and I -- think it's absurd that we have a system that treats all teachers the same and rewards seniority rather than competence and willingness to teach the toughest classrooms and most difficult subjects. 

The merit pay studies Ravitch cites were "after the fact" -- like giving an NFL player a bonus for having an excellent season. The differentiated pay Rhee talks about are "before the fact" -- like when a proven star signs a high-dollar free agent contract. 

Merit pay fails, as does evaluation by test scores, because they both compel teachers to teach to the test and ignore whatever is not tested, like the arts and physical education. Such policies harm the quality of education. No elite school—not Andover or Exeter or Sidwell Friends—evaluates its teachers by the scores of their students on standardized tests. Nor do any of the high-performing nations.

Is Ravitch saying that because I teach English I, a tested subject, I'll somehow force my students to neglect art and P.E.? How on earth could I do that? Other teachers teach those subjects. 

Also, Andover, Exeter, and Sidwell Friends don't look at the standardized test scores of their students? Is she joking? What are the SAT and ACT but standardized tests? Those schools examine those scores with a magnifying glass (and promote their results). Their ability to produce graduates who score highly on standardized tests is what keeps those at the top of the heap. There's tremendous pressure on those schools and teachers to teach a rigorous curriculum that translates to high standardized test scores. Does Ravitch somehow believe a rich parent is going to drop $40 grand on tuition and not expect their child to score in the 99th percentile?  

Ravitch:

Merit pay fails because teachers are doing the best they can with or without a bonus. Merit pay destroys teamwork and collaboration in the school. Teachers work together; they are not in an individual sport, trying to be first.

It's absolutely true that teaching is a team sport. It's also true that when another teacher does well, I benefit. I'm not sure why Ravitch believes that because the algebra teacher down the hall gets high test scores, that would somehow destroy my ability to collaborate with her. On the contrary, when students are receiving excellent instruction in all of their other classes, it makes my job easier.  

Ravitch:

Rhee and the corporate reform movement rely on the outdated behaviorist theories of the early 20th century. Modern cognitive psychology recognizes that intrinsic rewards are far more powerful than extrinsic rewards. People do their best when motivated by idealism and by their freedom to exercise their professional judgment.

Again, I'm confused. Why is Ravitch treating intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as mutually exclusive? I teach because it's rewarding to work with kids. I also have to make a living. All things equal, I'd prefer to make more money than less.

Her embrace of idealism here is ironic because Ravitch is among the chief critics of "idealistic" Teach for America teachers like myself (Philly '05!). From her article, "How, and How Not, to Improve the the Schools," published in the New York Review of Books:

Each year,TFA selects several thousand idealistic young people, gives them five weeks of training, and sends them out to teach.

Ravitch seems to believe there are two types of idealism. Her idea of bad idealism seems to be when elite college students join the teaching profession instead of choosing easier and/or higher-paying jobs. Given what she wrote for CNN, I guess her definition of good idealism is when all teachers are treated the same, regardless of competence or track record.

Personally, I lose some idealism when people who've never worked as a classroom teacher -- like Ravitch -- claim to know how teachers work best together.

Back to Ravitch's CNN article: 

The best organizations today recognize the importance of building a strong culture in the workplace—not with carrots and sticks—but with respect and collaboration. Andrea Gabor, the Bloomberg Professor of Business Journalism at Baruch College in New York City, recently wrote on my blog: “As W. Edwards Deming, a leading management expert and critic of merit pay, once put it: ‘The only reason an organization has dead wood is that management either hired dead wood or it hired live wood and killed it. Merit pay, by dividing and demoralizing employees, is a good way to erode initiative and overall quality.’”

As I wrote above, I'm not sure how other teachers doing well enough to earn a bonus is going negatively affect my morale. This isn't Goldman Sachs; if a teacher earns a bonus because they've done a great job, good for them. 

Speaking of deadwood employees, here's what really divides and demoralizes a teaching staff -- seeing incompetence compensated as well as excellence. I remember my first year in the classroom. One of the worst teachers with whom I worked had a doctorate and earned twice as much as the best teacher I knew, who had just a bachelor's degree. Tolerating teachers who don't do their job is what kills a positive teaching culture, not people who legitimately earn bonuses.

Ravitch:  

Our teachers need our support. Let’s put an end to the war on teachers in general and on experienced teachers in particular. No profession can exist without experienced practitioners. Teachers need tenure so they have academic freedom to teach controversial issues.

I loathe this sort of overstatement. Did Michelle Rhee shoot a teacher? Has she tossed a grenade into a school? No? Then can we please put an end to attaching the phrase "war on..." to every political disagreement we have? 

Of course teachers need to be supported. For me, that means that I've got colleagues who are committed and work hard. It means a principal who makes sure that everyone is focused on the same goal. It means that we work together to make sure students are held to a consistent expectation every moment they are in the school building. It means schools are properly equipped so teachers can focus on delivering the best lessons we can. 

As for tenure protecting teachers' ability to address controversial issues...well, when I taught in a district school in Philly, academic freedom wasn't the worry; it was having the freedom to teach in a school that wasn't in utter chaos. Tenure isn't necessary to keeping me in the classroom; it's working in a functional school that makes me want to stay. The ironic thing is that the best schools in which I've worked had no tenured teachers. 

I'm not sure how strong of a correlation there is between not having tenure and achievement. (Nearly no public schools in my home state of Mississippi have tenure, yet they aren't exactly celebrated for excellence.) It is logical, though, to expect some people to not consistently give their best when they know it's practically impossible for them to lose their jobs. It reminds me of a euphemism for a teacher who runs a classroom that's out of control: a "consequence-free environment." 

Ravitch seems to think that's a good way to run a school, though.

Ravitch:

Parents must be involved in helping their kids succeed. Research is clear that what parents do matters even more than what teachers do.  Parents affect their children’s attitudes, behavior, and willingness to study and learn.

I totally agree with this -- the problem is that kids don't choose their parents and there's little teachers can do to help parents be better caregivers. (The parents who need the most help are also the ones least likely to ask for it.) 

What teachers can do is make sure that a child gets a great education. For me, that means involving parents whenever possible and making do when I can't. This is the reality of teaching children who live in poverty. Education, though, the only hope if the cycle of poverty is going to be broken. Therefore, schools who serve children in poverty must answer the challenge. We must be advocates for the children who have no others. 

Ravitch: 

Our students and families and communities need support too. If reformers really cared about children, they would build a health clinic in every school. That would do more to improve test scores than all the teacher evaluation schemes and merit pay plans that the reformers are now imposing, without a shred of evidence.

I'd love to have a health clinic in every school and wish we had universal health care in this country. However, I'm not a doctor or a nurse. Metro Nashville Public Schools has no say over the funding of health care in this country. All I can do is do the best job I can teaching the children in my classroom each day and working with my colleagues to run a safe, supportive, academically-focused school. 

Addressing a different point, Tennessee implemented a revised teacher evaluation system that included student achievement scores as a part of the overall evaluation. While no one thinks the system is perfect and doesn't need some fixes, student proficiency levels rose in 23 out of 24 categories. This would constitute "a shred of evidence" that having meaningful evaluations for teachers would, in fact, improve test scores.

Ravitch, in conclusion:

We can improve our schools. We can improve our society. We must work on both at the same time.

I agree. Rhee and I just think our schools will be the agent that changes our society. Given Ravitch's proposed solutions, she seems to believe the opposite. 

Ravitch criticizes people like Rhee and me as "idealistic", but I think our plan is more pragmatic than defending the status quo in schools while wishing the symptoms of poverty away.