50 Hour Weeks

Charles Blow cites a study that says high school teachers work 50 hours per week, and that figure suggests they're undercompensated compared to teachers in other OECD countries.

50 hours?  I've hit the 50 hour mark by mid-Thursday (as have all my coworkers), and that excludes all the weekend hours.

Surely we at CP aren't the only ones...

Technology and other Gimmicks

This article seems to provide some data to what I, and others, have long suspected.  Expensive investments in technology don't seem to be worth the cost from an educational perspective.  I fully appreciate using an iPad to blog about a social studies topic can really invest students in learning, but nobody ever failed to learn math for lack of a laptop.  Most teachers (and most adults) are ill-equipped to use much of the latest technology, let alone teach it or use it to teach.  The tens of millions of dollars invested by districts gives leaders something to identity as a change or improvement from the past, but I don't think anyone is substantively better off because of that investment.  That money could go a long way toward paying teachers more, recruiting better teachers, or improving one of the many metrics that correlate with student success.

On a somewhat related note, I've learned all current Teach For America corps members are going to get a free iPad from apple.  As an alum, I'm kinda bummed I don't get one.  Where's the love, Teach For America?!

NY Times Room For Debate on Law Schools

The NY Times features "The Case Against Law School" in the Room For Debate section today.  I've included this link as a follow up to a previous post of mine that seems to have attracted an unusually high number of views.  Included in the Times piece are David Van Zandt, former dean of Northwestern Law and current president of the New School, and David Lat, who writes Above the Law.  Also featured are law professors from Syracuse, Hofstra, the University of Chicago, and Wisconsin.

There are a number of defenders of the current system, including Geoffrey R. Stone of UChicago, who claims it's not possible to fit legal education into a shorter, more cost effective timeframe.  I haven't gone to law school, but I'm inclined to disagree with Kevin Noble Maillard of Syracuse University, who says law school emphasize educated citizenship.  That's ridiculous.  Lawyers certainly don't monopolize educated citizenship and would-be educated citizens are probably better off reading the newspapers than legal textbooks.  If incoming law students ranked their goals for their legal education, I'm not sure becoming a more educated citizen would make the top five or top ten.

Bronx Charter School Illegally Reviewed Applicant Files to Determine Admission

Academic Leadership Charter School is under city investigation for allegedly reviewing the academic files of students applying for a seat in the school.  Students in charter schools are supposed to be picked randomly by lottery without an examination of their prior records.  Several former teachers and a number of parents told investigators stories of school officials reviewing files and weeding out weak performing applicants to deny them admission.  Norma Figueroa-Hurwitz, the current principal, saw success while running Public School 83 and Sisulu-Walker Charter School.

A Generation of Debt Repayment

The Scotsman, a British newspaper, features an article discussing the era of debt repayment in Europe.  Tom Friedman's op-ed discusses the upcoming clash of generations, as the baby boomer generation continues to enjoy the relative comforts available today while future generations are left to service debt.

Countless government programs have made people's lives easier and more comfortable over the past 70 years.  We've built roads, provided health care and income to people in need, supported children's education and health, set up mechanisms to support Americans in their retirement, promoted investment in new industries, encouraged homeownership among groups that haven't traditionally been homeowners, and fought a number of expensive wars.  And some of it we've paid for along the way, and much of it we haven't.  And in the coming generation, that money will have to be repaid - which is going to make sustaining the types of programs Americans are used to (and, many would argue, need) at the same time is going to be very difficult.  As a young person, it's demoralizing the think about the fact that my generation will help fund the expenditures that were racked up without much attention to their cost, and at the same time try to fund our own lives.

If money is being diverted to servicing debt, we aren't going to be able to buy as many things.  A bit less consumerism is probably a good think for individuals, but it's going to drastically alter the way the economy functions and produces jobs.  There's already evidence of that - big purchases like cars and overs are down substantially from a decade ago, and per capita consumer spending has decreased by more than twice the maximum previous percentage in any recession, and it doesn't show any signs of turning around.  The employment situation for 20somethings isn't good - even traditionally lucrative fields like law are suffering (see the comments as well).

What needs to happen to snap out of this funk?  An economist I'm not, but working to reduce long term debt obligations while maintaining government programs in the present seems like a wise start.  We can't afford to drastically curtail government spending right now, but we have to in the long run.  A substantial  part of a long-term strategy needs to include spending cuts for defense (an industry that appears to be concerned about the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars).  I know defense spending can be good for constituents, but the goals of our defense policy shouldn't include financing high-paying private sector jobs.  I realize that education is a large cost for this country, but how is it possible that so many people are rallying for cuts in schools (and sneer that teachers, who only work ten months a year, are overpaid) while so few pay attention to the things that really put a dent in our wallet?

New York Law School Rakes In Dollars While Students Flounder

Legal news seems to be hitting the mainstream; this article in the Times is follows up nicely to my post from several days ago about law schools.

The article confirms the anecdotes I've heard from my former college classmates who have entered law school:  schools are focused on increasing their rank in US News and World Report instead of teaching or finding jobs for students.  Part of this focus involves deceiving would-be students about their prospects for employment following graduation.  Stories like this, combined with stories like this, make me wonder if investment bankers are the ones running schools.

Richard Matasar is the dean of New York Law School (which, for the record, is not New York University Law School).  He's long claimed that schools that don't serve their graduates' interests should shut themselves down - since, of course, the objectives of a law school are to prepare its students to become lawyers.  That makes sense to me.  I'll excerpt some relevant quotes, but the entire article is worth reading.

N.Y.L.S. is ranked in the bottom third of all law schools in the country, but with tuition and fees now set at $47,800  a year, it charges more than Harvard. It increased the size of the class that arrived in the fall of 2009 by an astounding 30 percent, even as hiring in the legal profession imploded. It reported in the most recent US News & World Report rankings that the median starting salary of its graduates was the same as for those of the best schools in the nation — even though most of its graduates, in fact, find work at less than half that amount.


[I teach math, so I think I can tackle this: If most graduates earn less than half the reported median salary... someone's made a mistake in the reporting.)


Asked if there was a contradiction between his stand against expanding class sizes and the growth of the student population at N.Y.L.S., Mr. Matasar wrote: “The answer is that we exist in a market. When there is demand for education, we, like other law schools, respond.”


[Shouldn't law schools be leading students, not following them?]


The article outlines how the school increased the number of students who enrolled and earned an extra $6.7 million, while only adding costs of about $500,000.  Law schools are so profitable that some of them send 20-30% of their revenue to other parts of the university to subsidize less profitable departments (not NYLS, which is an independent school).  NYLS's enrollment allowed the school to improve its bond rating for an upcoming building project; some argue that adding more students to the class makes it tougher for graduates to get the few legal jobs available.  See below:


“At a school like New York Law, which is toward the bottom of the pecking order, it’s long been difficult for our students to find high-paying jobs,” said Randolph N. Jonakait, a professor at N.Y.L.S. and a frequent critic of Mr. Matasar’s. “Adding more than 100 students to an incoming class harms their employments prospects. It’s always been tough for our graduates. Now it’s tougher.”


The article states clearly, as others have done, that law schools overstate their employment numbers and make impressive claims ($160,000 salary!) with a lot of data missing (only 26% reporting).  How is it that schools of all types feel that they can review important statistics, disregard the ones they dislike, and promote a farcical version of the truth?  It's upsetting when teachers in Atlanta or Philadelphia change students' answer keys, it's embarrassing that there are countless degree programs from for-profit colleges that leave graduates with no job prospects and huge debt, and it's shocking that law schools seem to be doing something similar.  While they're not outright lying, they set the bar for ethics and disclosure lower than I'm comfortable with.


I'm not sure how many readers have experience with this side of the education world, but if you do, let us know about it in the comments.

Harlem Success Academy 3

The Times reports on a charter school allegedly counseling out a young student whose behavior was a problem in class.

After reading the article, I would really like to see the message the principal sent to the parent that the parent "took as a veiled message to leave."  With all of the email quotes in the article, you would think at least a few lines from that message would be included.  Readers should be able to judge for themselves the tone of the email (which may make the author's point more compelling).  And to be perfectly honest, I'm just interested in seeing what one of those messages actually looks like.

The second page explains, using data, how charter schools serve fewer special education students and English language learners than traditional schools.  Based on percentages, Success 3 (the charter being discussed) has approximately half the percentage of special education and ELL students a comparable traditional public school has.  Which is certainly interesting, but those figures themselves can mean a variety of things.  While the article implies students in those categories are counseled out, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that fewer of those students actually enrolled in the charter.  Many of my students at a previous school were ELL students, and I know the unique challenges in working with that population.  I know of schools where there are no school officials who can communicate with parents in their native language, which means they have no way to communicate with those parents.  Needless to say, few of those children end up at such schools.  In a major city, the language barrier shouldn't shut children out of schools.  Nor should a lack of understanding of school options or a fear of drawing attention to one's family (which is often the case when someone in the family is undocumented).

It seems odd that the student discussed in the article left his school so quickly.  I support the mindset present at the top of the article's second page, where it's emphasized that both behavioral and academic skills are retaught to students.  Helping a student learn how to fit into a school's behavior system sets them up for success.  It can often be a long, tiresome process with each individual student.  And it seems like the school he was enrolled in worked to find him a new school rather quickly.  A school that was truly having success should be able to explain to parents the process of reteaching behavioral expectations and point to successes throughout their school.  And assuming, for the sake of argument, that a school did try to separate from students who weren't a fit, it should be an absolute last option to explore if and only if all other options have been pursued and given sufficient time to take effect.

Lastly, a few readers have reached out to me via comment or email.  I hope to follow up with a few of them this week.  If you have a blog, link me to it so I can read it and add it to the list of pages I keep up with.  You can also follow me on Twitter at NYCteacher99.

What constitutes success?

An upcoming New York Times article discusses the no-excuses school movement here.  Advocates of certain low-income schools point out particular schools, many of which are charter schools, as models of success.  Critics point out that these schools have proficiency rates that are far below state averages and also their graduates"were below average in the basic academic skills necessary for success in college and in life".  School advocates countered that it's unfair (and, I'll assume, not useful from a data perspective) to compare students from low-income backgrounds and their more affluent peers in such a manner.

The article explains the situation clearly and I'll try to avoid making the author's points for him.  Towards the end of the article, however, he asks a tough question:

So why are some reformers resorting to excuses ? Most likely for the same reason that urban educators from an earlier generation made excuses: successfully educating large numbers of low-income kids is very, very hard. But it is not impossible, as reformers have repeatedly demonstrated on a small scale. To achieve systemwide success, though, we need a shift in strategy.


To shift strategies, we need to acknowledge the importance of several things.  First is the quality of education children receive.  Children need excellent teachers.  They also need their teachers to work under the leadership of dedicated administrators and district leaders who promote accountability.  Children need parents who are supportive and a positive force in their lives, and that means that schools and other groups should work toward equipping parents to empower their children.  One way schools can support this is by giving additional planning time to teachers so that teachers can reach out to parents.  Schools can also more effectively enforce their codes of conduct to incentivize positive behavior and give positive reinforcement to the students who need it most.


The article mentions small-scale success stories from the education reform movement.  It's going to be much easier to reach the first 1% of low-income students (who likely are talented, supported, and eager to learn) than the last 1% of students (who likely come from the most challenged of circumstances, and may have severe behavioral problems).  How do we reach the last 1% of students?  I'm interested in reading comments and offering my own thoughts once I formulate them.

Not Ready for College

A recent article by the New York Times outlines how graduates of city schools, even those that have earned an A, enter CUNY schools in need of substantial remediation.  There's a fair amount of useful information in the article, including this:

"The combined remediation rate for the 50 high schools serving the highest-achieving students, based on middle-school test scores, was 21 percent. For the 50 schools serving the lowest-achieving students, the CUNY remediation rate was 77 percent."
  
It's clear that some schools do a far better job of preparing students for college work than others.  Because we know that students who need remediation are less likely to graduate from college, it's easy to sympathize with families whose children are in underperforming schools and are looking to move them into schools with a track record of success.  As the article notes, success in college can be tied to not only high school education but also middle school education.  I'll allow that there are likely several variables at play when comparing schools, but focusing on outcomes like this is a meaningful exercise.

Williamsburg Preparatory School is an interesting case study.  Per the Times, it earned an A on the three most recent progress reports and has an 88% graduation rate.  But three quarters of the students it sends to CUNY (who comprise 39% of a graduating class) fail CUNY's readiness tests.  The school's principal, Alyce Barr, counters by explaining that because the school focuses on writing skills (students don't take Regents due to a state waiver) her students will perform better than their CUNY test scores indicate.  Her analysis seems off, however, given that CUNY's remediation tests included writing tests, and that there's still the matter of math scores.

If students at a successful school are falling so far short of college success, how many students at other schools across the city are graduating without the skills to succeed in college?  In my experience, there's an unwillingness to be honest about the fact that by the time students enter high school - even by the time they enter 7th grade - students are several years behind where they should be.  The gap of skills is talked about in a big picture sense, but most schools teach what they think they need to until they get within shouting distance of the end of the year without any sense of where students should end up at the end of a course and what next steps will be for students who do or don't meet goals.

I don't know exactly how we close that gap.  Part of it rests on having the right teachers in the classroom under the leadership of capable administrators.  Maximizing student learning time and holding students accountable are key.  There are a number of schools that do a good job of identifying shortcomings, creating a plan to address deficiencies, executing their plan, and then reviewing their progress to make adjustments if needed.  Unfortunately, too few schools do that well.