Tacoma Weekly put out its Best of Tacoma 2011 guide. Readers cast votes for the various best categories, and on p. 5 they note that Karen Vialle is the best School District Staff Member. This is both confusing and vexing. Presumably, if Vialle wins the election (as she almost certainly will) in November, she will no longer be able to serve as a substitute teacher. Full-time teachers and staff members cannot serve as staffers and board members, so I presume Vialle can't either.
More importantly, this rather fanciful (farcical?) 'best' selection is obviously a mere popularity contest. Does this reflect badly on her as a political candidate? Is she winning so much voter approval more for her name recognition than for her qualifications?
Every time I've heard her speak, even in one-on-one conversation, she is primarily in 'transmit' mode, and rarely in 'receive.' The last forum I saw, she seemed to simply repeat Dexter Gordon, who himself was rather uninspiring. Not exactly what we need on the Board, in my estimation.
And, wouldn't it have been nice to recognize some full-time staff members who labor with much less recognition? I know plenty of classified staff and certified teachers who devote extensive energy to their work, and deserve the recognition more than Vialle.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
I'm liberated
Part of Puyallup school district's new commitment to standards-based grading includes this:
No more penalizing students with reduced marks for work that's turned in late.
No more penalizing students with reduced marks for work that's turned in late.
I'm sure the Ed. School professors who dream up these things happily tell their deans and tenure committees that there really isn't or can't be a deadline for submitting tenure review materials. Or how about grant applications and funding follow-up reports. As long as the professors turn the material in at some point, the granting agency will be fine with that.
And I'm sure that the administrative types who sign on to such plans don't penalize their assorted staff members for any tardiness in their work--say, administering the MSP.?
As for my part, I'm going to tell OSPI that the work for my upgraded teacher certification requirements may come in a bit later than they expect.
And I've notified a few other folks about my new plan for liberation through tardiness.
To the IRS, don't get hung up on that whole April 15th thing.
To my mortgage company, the check's in the mail...soon.
My wife's birthday...well, let's not go too far.
And I'm sure that the administrative types who sign on to such plans don't penalize their assorted staff members for any tardiness in their work--say, administering the MSP.?
As for my part, I'm going to tell OSPI that the work for my upgraded teacher certification requirements may come in a bit later than they expect.
And I've notified a few other folks about my new plan for liberation through tardiness.
To the IRS, don't get hung up on that whole April 15th thing.
To my mortgage company, the check's in the mail...soon.
My wife's birthday...well, let's not go too far.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Hiring a new superintendent is NOT the most important thing
A lot of people--school board candidates not least among them--are anxious about the hiring of the new superintendent for Tacoma schools. Just the other day I heard two candidates--Karen Vialle and Dexter Gordon--name that in their answer to a question about one policy they'd pursue if elected.
The answer was something of a non sequitur, as expressing the importance of hiring the superintendent isn't really a policy, but we can give some license there because the more relevant point is that hiring the new superintendent really isn't that important...at least not in the way most people--Vialle and Gordon among them--think.
If we go out on a big national search (as I've heard Gordon say we must) we'll end up with some sort of education high-flyer. Somebody who professes expertise and wisdom in the reform process. They'll likely promise, at least implicitly, dramatic results and fast. The new superintendent (or what I prefer to call überintendent) will arrive with a sense of purpose and mandate to show progress on all the indicators that are low in Tacoma. This likely means a kind of administrative forcefulness and top-down orientation that will not endear the überintendent to the community and will not rebuild the deeply frayed trust. (I've written of this before.)
What I think we really want is someone who has the patience to discern what already works in Tacoma and the relational capacity to rebuild trust by building on what is working. This person may be an education reform stalwart, but doesn't necessarily have to be. None of the last several superintendents has lived up to this hype.
And that may be okay. If we hype less--by not overblowing the need to get an überintendent--and relate more, we won't be in such a panic to get everything done next year...with the latest surefire curriculum...applied through another round of professional trainings promised to be the one that will solve our problems.
Rather, we can all just get to the slow steady work of improving education and raising performance of our students.
The answer was something of a non sequitur, as expressing the importance of hiring the superintendent isn't really a policy, but we can give some license there because the more relevant point is that hiring the new superintendent really isn't that important...at least not in the way most people--Vialle and Gordon among them--think.
If we go out on a big national search (as I've heard Gordon say we must) we'll end up with some sort of education high-flyer. Somebody who professes expertise and wisdom in the reform process. They'll likely promise, at least implicitly, dramatic results and fast. The new superintendent (or what I prefer to call überintendent) will arrive with a sense of purpose and mandate to show progress on all the indicators that are low in Tacoma. This likely means a kind of administrative forcefulness and top-down orientation that will not endear the überintendent to the community and will not rebuild the deeply frayed trust. (I've written of this before.)
What I think we really want is someone who has the patience to discern what already works in Tacoma and the relational capacity to rebuild trust by building on what is working. This person may be an education reform stalwart, but doesn't necessarily have to be. None of the last several superintendents has lived up to this hype.
And that may be okay. If we hype less--by not overblowing the need to get an überintendent--and relate more, we won't be in such a panic to get everything done next year...with the latest surefire curriculum...applied through another round of professional trainings promised to be the one that will solve our problems.
Rather, we can all just get to the slow steady work of improving education and raising performance of our students.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Neighborhood Forum--Tacoma Elections
I went to a Candidate Forum held by one of the Neighborhood Councils here in Tacoma. All four School Board candidates were there.
All the candidates introduced themselves for one minute, then spent one minute each on two more questions. One was, What do you think the district should do with the buildings that it has closed? The second was, What is one policy you will pursue if elected?
3 minutes total, then much later a Q & A, that I did not stay to see.
Some interesting things....
Scott Heinze (seeking Seat #3--the very same which your blogger sought in the primary) did a very good job. He answered both questions thoroughly and clearly. In fact, Scott reinforced my feeling that he's the best of the four remaining candidates. Dexter Gordon (Heinze's opponent) offered little specific material by which to take a good sense of what he's about.
Scott answered first of all four on the 'closed buildings' question. And after he said that we need a long-term strategic plan by which to make better projections about facilities use, he advocated for 'repurposing' empty buildings into things like community centers for neighborhoods. Last week, he was at a meeting at the Portland Avenue Community Center (which I also attended) in which Eastside community members talked about a variety of plans to establish community activities and a center in their neighborhood. It was a good example of the specific ways that Scott works with regular Tacomans to solve problems.
Dexter Gordon and Karen Vialle (Seat #5) both largely recycled Scott's answer. Dexter even used the word 'repurpose,' which I had always avoided (Scott's early and consistent use made it "his" word) and which I had not heard Dexter use before in 5 or 6 public events.
As for the 'one policy you'd implement' question, Dexter led off with a reasonable observation about eroded trust and the need to rebuild it among all players in the story. Karen Vialle parroted Dexter, even to the point of squeezing in the same quick reference to how important the hiring of the new Superintendent was going to be. Interesting observations, and I agree with them. Neither of them answered the question, though.
Scott, by contrast, emphasized the need to focus energy on early childhood education. He rightly pointed out how serious the consequences are for children that begin to fall behind early, and said we need to make sure we get the pre-school to 3rd grade students on an early track for success.
Nicely put.
Some interesting (as in, odd) things, too, I thought.
Everybody pushed their doctoral status pretty hard. Kim Washington emphasized the 'Dr.' in her name when she introduced herself. (She's an Ed.D.) Dexter Gordon introduced himself as a Distinguished Professor at UPS, sort of hitting 'Distinguished' hard. Karen Vialle noted that she finished all graduate work for the Ph.D., except the dissertation. Only Scott neglected to mention his doctoral status. Last I heard, he was beginning work on his dissertation.
Another interesting aspect....I saw and heard Kim Washington (Seat #5) for the first time. All during the primary, she participated in none of the public events to which we were all invited. It's tough to imagine she can surmount Vialle's sizable lead.
The most surprising, however, was Dexter Gordon's listlessness. As a voter, I have not been thrilled with his zeal--it tends toward zealotry. But as more than one observer has pointed out, "He's passionate." Well, the passion seemed absent. Recycled answers, lower intensity....I hope he's not flagging. Not with a month still to go.
All the candidates introduced themselves for one minute, then spent one minute each on two more questions. One was, What do you think the district should do with the buildings that it has closed? The second was, What is one policy you will pursue if elected?
3 minutes total, then much later a Q & A, that I did not stay to see.
Some interesting things....
Scott Heinze (seeking Seat #3--the very same which your blogger sought in the primary) did a very good job. He answered both questions thoroughly and clearly. In fact, Scott reinforced my feeling that he's the best of the four remaining candidates. Dexter Gordon (Heinze's opponent) offered little specific material by which to take a good sense of what he's about.
Scott answered first of all four on the 'closed buildings' question. And after he said that we need a long-term strategic plan by which to make better projections about facilities use, he advocated for 'repurposing' empty buildings into things like community centers for neighborhoods. Last week, he was at a meeting at the Portland Avenue Community Center (which I also attended) in which Eastside community members talked about a variety of plans to establish community activities and a center in their neighborhood. It was a good example of the specific ways that Scott works with regular Tacomans to solve problems.
Dexter Gordon and Karen Vialle (Seat #5) both largely recycled Scott's answer. Dexter even used the word 'repurpose,' which I had always avoided (Scott's early and consistent use made it "his" word) and which I had not heard Dexter use before in 5 or 6 public events.
As for the 'one policy you'd implement' question, Dexter led off with a reasonable observation about eroded trust and the need to rebuild it among all players in the story. Karen Vialle parroted Dexter, even to the point of squeezing in the same quick reference to how important the hiring of the new Superintendent was going to be. Interesting observations, and I agree with them. Neither of them answered the question, though.
Scott, by contrast, emphasized the need to focus energy on early childhood education. He rightly pointed out how serious the consequences are for children that begin to fall behind early, and said we need to make sure we get the pre-school to 3rd grade students on an early track for success.
Nicely put.
Some interesting (as in, odd) things, too, I thought.
Everybody pushed their doctoral status pretty hard. Kim Washington emphasized the 'Dr.' in her name when she introduced herself. (She's an Ed.D.) Dexter Gordon introduced himself as a Distinguished Professor at UPS, sort of hitting 'Distinguished' hard. Karen Vialle noted that she finished all graduate work for the Ph.D., except the dissertation. Only Scott neglected to mention his doctoral status. Last I heard, he was beginning work on his dissertation.
Another interesting aspect....I saw and heard Kim Washington (Seat #5) for the first time. All during the primary, she participated in none of the public events to which we were all invited. It's tough to imagine she can surmount Vialle's sizable lead.
The most surprising, however, was Dexter Gordon's listlessness. As a voter, I have not been thrilled with his zeal--it tends toward zealotry. But as more than one observer has pointed out, "He's passionate." Well, the passion seemed absent. Recycled answers, lower intensity....I hope he's not flagging. Not with a month still to go.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Standards based assessments not a panacea
A Tacoma School Board candidate that I know asked me what I thought of standards-based assessment.
As I've said before, education is an endeavor that entails a certain degree of sloppiness. Thinking that we can clean up that sloppiness with a new evaluation system may be too hopeful. I'd much rather prepare teachers and administrators to identify the ways that teachers and students accomplish good things in looser ways, and encourage a general alertness to shifting and stretching what works to cover more students in more skills and content areas.
Well, I told him, I have a lot of thoughts...depending on the more specific framing of the question.
First, I think everybody just imagines the 4-3-2-1 as grades anyway--A-B-C-D. So there will need to be some relearning of what the scores mean. Unless that IS what they mean?
More importantly, the human element still exists in the determining of how well the student met the standard. Last year we had some oddly written standards rubrics (from OSPI, for the social studies CBA), so we had quite lengthy discussions about how to evaluate whether the student met the standard. (The question of what the standards are and how they're created is another matter.)
Further, I think teachers are subtly encouraged to read the standard then simply look for the presence of material that matches that standard. And it doesn't matter whether that material is any good or not. This is particularly problematic in social studies/humanities kinds of subjects.
Ultimately, I think the impulse toward standards based assessment is driven by the (mindless) desire to numerate and technologize things. If we can put seemingly replicable numeration to something we can believe that we're standardizing the measurement and production of what in this case is hard to measure in that way. We've thus technologized it in a way that makes us think we can routinize the production of that thing.
Neil Postman writes extensively of this in his book Technopoly.
In the end, I don't think we're any clearer that a student is actually learning something or learning as much as they should/need to. I think the standards movement thinks that standards based assessment does give us a better sense, but I don't know that it does.
Take 'inference making,' for instance. I can teach about that. Talk about what goes into it, etc., but some kids will always be better than others. Or writing. We are going to work on a 'standard' that involves teaching the writing process. We'll measure their facility with naming and knowing the process, but not worry so much about whether they actually write anything worth reading. Seems strange to me, but the logic goes, 'well, at least they know the process.'
As I've said before, education is an endeavor that entails a certain degree of sloppiness. Thinking that we can clean up that sloppiness with a new evaluation system may be too hopeful. I'd much rather prepare teachers and administrators to identify the ways that teachers and students accomplish good things in looser ways, and encourage a general alertness to shifting and stretching what works to cover more students in more skills and content areas.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Perception management
My father--who was for years the public relations director for a major state agency in CA--often said, "It doesn't matter what IS....It matters what people THINK things are." Obviously, that can be used cynically or constructively. He being my father, I liked to think that his candor reflected that he was trying to open, honest, etc. His truism also reflects on our penchant for conspiracy. It is all too easy to think something, even if that something ISN'T!
It would be tempting, for instance, to see a public agency post notice of a fairly unusual idea/plan after close of business on a Friday (as the Tacoma school district did with its unusual Deputy to Elect to Interim--to beyond??--Superintendent plan) and think they did so with the intent of minimizing the prospect of questions or blowback.
(Just as tempting, by the way, as when I kept asking the Tacoma Education Association why they had not interviewed me as part of the endorsement process during the campaign last summer and they finally responded to my 4 phone calls and one in-person visit by calling me Friday--the last day before they would be closed for a week--at 5:15 PM.)
It would be tempting to look at that Deputy Interim Elect Super plan and think it is a back-door mechanism by which to give Carla Santorno the job, since they seemed eager to do so in September.
It would be tempting to look at the idea for the current Superintendent to represent the district in Olympia as a way for him to sharpen up his lobbying credentials while drawing a big salary and move into an attractive career after he finally leaves Tacoma.
These--and many more--tempt one to conspiratorial thinking. I'm working hard to resist that inclination...but I'm just saying.
It would be tempting, for instance, to see a public agency post notice of a fairly unusual idea/plan after close of business on a Friday (as the Tacoma school district did with its unusual Deputy to Elect to Interim--to beyond??--Superintendent plan) and think they did so with the intent of minimizing the prospect of questions or blowback.
(Just as tempting, by the way, as when I kept asking the Tacoma Education Association why they had not interviewed me as part of the endorsement process during the campaign last summer and they finally responded to my 4 phone calls and one in-person visit by calling me Friday--the last day before they would be closed for a week--at 5:15 PM.)
It would be tempting to look at that Deputy Interim Elect Super plan and think it is a back-door mechanism by which to give Carla Santorno the job, since they seemed eager to do so in September.
It would be tempting to look at the idea for the current Superintendent to represent the district in Olympia as a way for him to sharpen up his lobbying credentials while drawing a big salary and move into an attractive career after he finally leaves Tacoma.
These--and many more--tempt one to conspiratorial thinking. I'm working hard to resist that inclination...but I'm just saying.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Tacoma comes up with another dubious plan
The school board in Tacoma is considering a plan to...well, read it here.
I think this is a very problematic idea, not because of the individuals involved but because of the organizational realities of such things.
The personal, personnel and organizational tangle that such things create primarily promise to project the staffing/appointment process into the future.
I think this is a very problematic idea, not because of the individuals involved but because of the organizational realities of such things.
Interim, Elect (interim), what does all that mean? Is it a probationary period? What kind of expectations does everybody have? What expectations will develop?
Patterns tend to get set, so in 18 months she's "in place" or we need to remove and replace, which becomes another political brawl because she's entrenched with allies.
Is this a back door way to get her the job? And why in the world is the district paying Jarvis a fat salary to go grease the way to a lobbying career?
Why does it seem like 2 board members (Dugan and Golding are lame ducks, Winskill seems absent) are driving this so hard right now?
The personal, personnel and organizational tangle that such things create primarily promise to project the staffing/appointment process into the future.
Organizationally, this seems like a dubious plan that generates a lot more questions than clarity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)