Zais's Proposals a Mixed Bag

While irate teachers may focus on the loss of the National Board Certification bonus, (highest in the nation, by the way), South Carolina's state superintendent of education, Mick Zais does have a few ideas that sound sensible. Some focus on local school boards.

One proposal is that school board meetings must be posted on the district's website at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, a change from the 24 hours now required.

A more interesting proposal is that the minutes of such meetings must be posted there within five days, not the present 10 and posted on the district's home page.  Interestingly, the most recent minutes posted on the Charleston County School District's website are from mid-August.

My personal favorite is the proposal that districts that don't post on their websites the cost of administration will be punished, perhaps by withholding state money.

Zais also feels the need to propose that districts transfer state money to the charter schools within their districts more quickly. Gee, I wonder why that proposal is needed.

CCSD Sets Up Experienced Teachers to Take the Fall

Nice to see my friend Cyndi on the front page of the P & C, rather than the usual poseurs who claim to be making a difference. She really is. I may need to change my category to "sung" heroes. [See Seasoned teachers wanted in struggling schools.]

Would you believe that CCSD officials have never tried before to point more experienced teachers towards working in its failing schools? What can I say? They admit it themselves.

The reporter is a bit confused about the difference between an experienced teacher and an NBCT--but I'll let that one pass. At least we finally have the statistic that CCSD has been hiding (where its NBCTs are working): "Only 36 of the county's 293 National Board Certified teachers [. . .] work in schools rated unsatisfactory on the state report card."

Now, why would that be? Hmm. Maybe because the incentive money that comes with NBCT certification doesn't require any such commitment from those teachers? I've pointed out previously that a stipulation to work for a certain period in an under-performing school would spread some of that state money to the schools that really need those teachers. I guess the state legislature doesn't want to upset the education apple cart.

In the "Ripley's Believe It or Not" category, we have Superintendent McGinley, who now wields the power to place teachers that was taken away from the constituent boards, pleading that experienced teachers volunteer out of the goodness of their hearts--no other reward, mind you--to go from the relatively tolerable environments they are now in and dive into the great unknown.

Except it's not the great unknown. What's known is that these schools have great difficulty in keeping faculty year after year. You don't need to teach in one of these schools to know why. Just look at some of the comments on the above-referenced article in the P & C's online edition. For example,

As a Nationally Board Certified teacher who has taught in a "failing" school for the last 7 years, I can tell you why good teachers do not stay in these schools. The paperwork required of these teachers is punitive, many of the administrators are not effective, the students are disrespectful and disruptive, and the teachers can drive down the street a few miles and work in a school where they don't have to deal with any of these things--for the same pay.

All of that being said, a good teacher in one of these schools CAN make a difference. My students consistently score well on tests--and they love to learn--despite where they come from. Not everyone can teach in these schools, but if you have the "gift" and can do it--those kids need you!

If you haven't taught in one of these schools, how do you know "you have the 'gift'"? Does being a highly effective teacher in another environment guarantee it? What happens if you don't? Even the head of the New Teacher Project (yes, let's not forget them--the ones who got paid so much by CCSD for failing to recruit the number of new teachers they promised) said he hadn't previously heard of "such an organized emotional appeal." It comes with a recruiting video but not much else.

Some comments did make sense. Even Daly (of the NTP) pointed out that "the district should make those schools worth wanting, . . . . Schools need to have strong team cultures and good academic instruction so that high-performing teachers will want to go there and stay."

And Kent Riddle, chairman of the Charleston Teacher Alliance, "said the district should focus on the bigger issue of why low-performing schools lack quality teachers. School officials should ask teachers why they leave such schools and evaluate whether those issues are ones they can address."

Ask the teachers? What a novel idea! Certainly McGinley doesn't have any firm ideas in mind other than emotional calls to the altar. Her theorizing about financial incentives and guaranteed jobs held in the school left behind is simply pie in the sky by and by.

Next we know, experienced teachers in the district will be blamed for not heeding the call.

NOTE: For a taste of what goes on in Sacramento, California, see Why couldn't they find the teachers they needed? post of March 1, 2008

Why the Difference, CCSD?

In mid-December, CCSD proudly announced that 32 more teachers had achieved National Board Certification. Great, isn't it? Dorchester District 2 also announced that 20 of its teachers had reached that status. Great for those teachers and their students and the districts that employ them.

However.

DD2 announced the 20 names with the names of the schools where they teach.

Don't you wonder why CCSD simply announced 32 names without saying where they teach? Wouldn't you like to know if any of the district's failing schools gained NBCTs? In fact, wouldn't it be interesting to see where all of the NBCTs in CCSD teach? I do happen to know that one on the new list teaches at Stall.

Is this simply another case of "them that has, gets"?

Do the Math: New Teacher Project Doesn't Add Up

What if you got paid to fail? And the S.C. legislature helps to pay you? Sounds like Alice in Wonderland, doesn't it? Well, how about the New Teacher Project (NTP), contracted by CCSD to provide about 100 teachers per year for two years for the sum of $1.1 million.

Okay, that's $1.1 million divided by 200, which equals approximately $5500 per teacher.

Now, if the organization finds and trains teachers for failing schools that have difficulty recruiting and, especially, retaining teachers, and those recruits effectively teach for, say, at least five years each, that works out as a pretty good, if somewhat expensive, deal for students in failing schools.

But, what if NTP doesn't reach its target? Why, the NTP must pay CCSD $1500 for each position it falls short of the minimum of 90 per year that the contract requires. That means the NTP earns $4000 for each teacher IT DOESN'T FIND!

Right now, according to today's P & C, the project has signed nine teachers, "only 10 percent of the goal," and has 14 "potential hires" more in the works, for a potential total of 23. School begins in about six weeks. The seven middle and high schools in question have about 50 vacancies. The article does not clarify if 50 is the norm for them.

While the site manager for NTP says that she "believes Teach Charleston will meet its goal," let's assume just for argument's sake that instead of signing 90 it signs 50. NTP will then pay CCSD $60,000 for the shortfall, but NTP will have received $550,000 as the contract requires, for a cost to the district of $11,000 per teacher. A bit stiff, don't you think? What if NTP signs only 25?

One would hope that these teachers not only must sign but also must teach for a minimum number of months in order to count as fulfilling the obligation. Who knows?

And where does the state legislature come into play, you ask? In order to pay for Teach Charleston, CCSD "wanted to" pay half and get the community to pay the other half. Right now the community has contributed $27,600, or about 10 percent of its share.

BUT WAIT!

"The community" apparently includes the state legislature, which in its wisdom has granted $100,000 to the Coastal Community Foundation to give to Teach Charleston as part of the pork [read "earmarks"] doled out from its Competitive Grants Committee made up of former state legislators. So in effect the state legislature has given CCSD another $100,000.

No, don't get me wrong. I hope NTP succeeds with these schools that desperately need effective and stable teaching staffs. There are other ways in which the legislature could help, however--even if the State Department of Education, Jim Rex, and the education lobby would blow a collective gasket if it did:

• South Carolina should accept out-of-state certificates in good standing as qualifying those who hold them to teach in SC public schools, and those attempting to change careers through alternative certification should have their process smoothed and made less expensive.


• A hefty proportion of non-need-based lottery scholarships should be awarded to those pledging to teach for at least three years.


• Teachers who take advantage of state funding to get National Board Certification should be required to teach and/or mentor for at least three years in failing schools in order to get the salary bonus.

And individual school districts, such as CCSD, must revamp their support of "newbies" by mentors and principals as well as their discipline programs to prevent the huge percentage of certified teachers who leave the profession prematurely. Stop blaming that drain on low salaries alone.

Charleston Progressive: How to Progress

Commenters have left so many details on the gap between the two magnet schools in District 20 (Buist and CPA) that I'm trying to pin down what's going on.

The puzzle is what makes Charleston Progressive a magnet school?

Does it have a stated mission? What perceived need was it supposed to meet? What did CCSD promise when it was founded? How long has it existed? Why did CCSD move it to Courtenay?

Then, if the information posted over the last few weeks is correct, why does it get $1000 less per student than Buist? Why is no foreign language offered?

If Buist has a full-time assistant principal and full-time PE, art, and music teachers, what exactly does CPA have that makes it different from other non-magnet District 20 schools? Does it share its part-time teachers with any other school? Does it have any National Board Certified teachers?

If its library has been stocked using Title 1 funds, is that library appropriate for a magnet school and/or CPA's mission?

How has CCSD treated Charleston Progressive in regard to NCLB? What percentage of its students live outside of District 20? Are students who qualify for SAIL at CPA bussed to Mitchell along with other students from District 20, or does it have its own program?

And, as long as Mayor Riley is flogging the "circle" of businesses around Dist. 20 schools for their support, how about their setting up a Charleston Progressive Academy Foundation?

Three signals that will tell if McGinley seriously wishes to improve District 20 schools:

1. The Buist lottery system will undergo renovations to make cheating impossible;
2. Charleston Progressive will receive the resources it truly needs to be a magnet; and
3. The planned District 20 charter high school will receive her support.

Gregg Meyers (and some others) won't like it. I'm still trying to reconcile the idea of Meyers as Civil Rights advocate with the one who sits on the CCSD school board.

UPDATE: This blog may also be reached through www.linkcharleston.com/ , a web newspaper covering the Lowcountry.

The Law of Unintended Consequences, Part II: NBCT's

A reminder of the South Carolina legislature's short-sightedness regarding National Board Certification appeared in the Post and Courier last Wednesday. The article concerned the report issued by the NBCT Summit held in South Carolina last August. [see http://www.thescea.org/policy.pdf ] for the full report.

Why nine months' labor was required to publish the report is not clear, but at least one of its statistics is very predictable: Of the 5000 NBCT's in South Carolina (and aren't we proud that we are third in the nation in numbers!) a mere 132 teach in "high-needs" schools! For the math-challenged, that's about two and one-half percent.

What happened? You may want to check out my post of last August titled, "The Law of Unintended Consequences."

The report of the Summit has several recommendations, including adding an additional $5000 to NBCT's who teach in the failing schools in question. There is nothing wrong with their analysis. It's just that, as usual, South Carolina is trying to lock the barn door after the horse got out.

Would it not be nice to have administrators and legislators with foresight? Seeing this train coming down the tracks would not have taken a rocket scientist.

Now, it's lack of foresight, or intentional neglect, (I'm not sure which) that caused the state legislature (also last summer) to restructure the tax base for school funding without giving any attention to the consequences for the funds it sends to school districts.

That's our $11 million shortfall.

The Law of Unintended Consequences: NCBTs

"Summit to address where top teachers would be best used" by Diette Courrege, in the Lowcountry & State section.

This report in the Newsless Courier this morning set me to thinking about the policy of South Carolina in regard to paying bonuses to teachers who gain National Board Certification. The article concerns a meeting in Columbia sponsored by the NEA (that's National Education Association), bringing together SC National Board Certified teachers to discuss "the best ways to get more accomplished teachers into schools struggling with high teacher turnover and poor student achievement."
South Carolina's policy provides yet another example of the law of unintended consequences--that is, a policy that attempts to engineer one outcome but results in another. Hoping to improve schools overall, the state legislature is now unwittingly moving state resources out of low-performing into high-performing schools. To put that another way, them that has, gets.

How so? Let's start with the following questions:

1. What IS NBC (apart from well-known broadcasting network)? A certification process about 20 years old that addresses the perhaps less-than-stellar outcomes for potential teachers graduating from our nation's (and, yes, our state's) schools of education. It requires two years of substantial effort to complete the required portfolio and complete the vetting process. One has to wonder why this two-year effort should not be part of getting certified in the first place, but, oh well.
2. What would entice hard-working, underpaid teachers to complete this time-consuming process? Clearly, several years ago the South Carolina State Assembly asked this very question, having decided that NBCT's would improve SCs abysmal educational standards, not an unreasonable opinion. The answer it proposed and passed, at least for today's teachers, is $7,500 per year over a period of ten years (that's $75,000 for those of you who need a calculator to multiply) PLUS loans to pay for the process that are forgiven when the candidate completes the process favorably.
3. Why does South Carolina rank third in the nation in NBCTs when it ranks fifty-first in graduation rates? Did you read the answer to # 2? For younger teachers, especially, $7500 per year means a rise in yearly income by 30 percent or more! Who wouldn't go for that?
4. So, how is the consequence "unintended"? That's easy. Where do these NBCTs teach? Did the State Assembly attach any strings to its program of rewards for hard work? NO. Most of these teachers continued to work at the school from which they came if the school was a good environment to teach in, and those who now had a "ticket" out of bad environments bailed to good ones. Who could blame them? That means that state resources are moving from"high-needs" schools (I'm using the latest jargon here) and sent to high-performing schools once again, thanks to this brilliant strategy that probably originated with our state department of education.
5. Why don't we get a breakdown of NCBTs by school? It would be too embarrassing for CCSD to publish. I mean, what if it shows that 50 percent of Wando High School's faculty is board-certified compared to one percent of Burke's? (I'm making these figures up, of course, although they might be not far from the truth.)
6. Why does the NEA's associate director of teacher quality think that "strings" requiring NBCTs to teach in "high-needs" schools are '''stupid policies'"? Umm, pandering to her constituency, perhaps? Carmon says that what Georgia did on this very question--"tying the supplement ... to a requirement to teach in high-needs schools" won't work. SHE says "money is not the trigger" to get good teachers into those schools. Really? What's her evidence?
7. Why do a few NBCTs remain in the poor schools they were teaching in before? Actually, those are the saints, such as Barbara Hairfield, who was the ONLY NCBT at Alice Birney Middle School (maybe my statistics aren't off so much in # 5 above after all!) and is now (God bless her!) at Brentwood Middle School, which probably is the most difficult school for teachers in CCSD.
8. And, the $64 question: Why is the NEA holding these "summits" (six counting South Carolina's) now? Ms. Carmon tips the careful reader off to that one! It seems that Georgia has just changed its policy in order to get more NBCTs into "high-needs" schools--in fact, every teacher certified after July 2006 must teach in one of these schools in order to get the 10 per cent salary supplement. The handwriting is on the wall.
9. That's right--South Carolina is soooo much wealthier than Georgia that each NBCT gets $7500 regardless of salary. In order for a teacher in Georgia to get that much she would need a base salary of $75,000! Not too many of those, I suspect.
10. Can we use some common sense here? The local school districts need to plan to encourage teams of NBCTs to teach and mentor at low-performing schools.

We don't need a summit to figure that one out! CCSD, that's PLANNING ...