Race To the Top ...A Win or a Lose For Scarsdale: Interview with Michael McGill
New York State recently won almost $700,000,000 in Race to the Top grant funds from the Federal Government. This is a big win for many districts in our state, especially New York City schools who are slated to receive $250-$300 million of the grant for educational reforms. The grants were awarded to states that are leading the way in comprehensive, coherent, statewide education reform across four key areas:
- Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace;
- Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals how to improve instruction;
- Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
- Turning around their lowest-performing schools.
Clearly, there are many districts in New York City and New York State that have room for improvement in educating students, improving test scores and increasing the number of students who go onto college. But what does this new initiative mean to a district like Scarsdale, where students have historically done very well on standardized tests and 99% of high school seniors continue their education after high school? Do we stand to benefit in the form of increased state aid or funding for new programs?
We asked Scarsdale Schools Superintendent Michael McGill what the Race to the Top means for our district and here is what we learned:
Will Scarsdale receive any of the Race to the Top funds?
We are unlikely to get any money. We are required to comply.
What new requirements, if any, will now be mandated by the state?
The most immediate impact will be a requirement to rate both teachers and principals based on state test results, local assessments, and other factors. Each of these categories will have point value and individuals will then be rated on a 100-point scale. As far as we know, we'll have to do the ratings and we may have to report them to the State. This last part isn't yet clear.
In your view, will rating school personnel improve performance?
We don't see this provision as helping us here. It is troubling for a number of reasons.
Rating performance by state test scores is problematic. The quality of the tests isn't consistently high, and the practice is irrational. Why? If an excellent teacher has a class with several learning-challenged children, their test scores may not be as strong as those of more talented children in Teacher B's class next door. Teacher A therefore receives a lower rating than Teacher B. It's the Memorial Sloan Kettering problem: do you rate the hospital down because it has a higher mortality rate than one that doesn't handle nearly as many critical cases? That's only one example of error inherent in the plan.
When many people in any system believe the system is subject to significant error, erratic and unfair, the results can be unpredictable; generally, however, they're not good. We can't predict with certainty what will happen if that turns out to be the case here, as seems likely. We do know we're dealing once more with the unintended consequences of top-down, bureaucratic reforms that may be well intentioned but that again are being applied uniformly, as if one size fits all.
We believe the main reason for rating teachers is to distinguish between those who are not meeting a Scarsdale standard and those who are. If a teacher is below standard, we provide support and may need to find ways to separate the individual from the district. We have done both these things each year, although we don't broadcast the news.
For teachers who do meet a Scarsdale standard of performance, the important question isn't how they rate, but how each one can continue to enhance his or her strengths and ameliorate any weaknesses. This is a developmental process that may involve further academic study, classroom observation, collaboration with colleagues, and opportunities to practice new techniques and approaches. That work occurs best in a trusting climate that honors risk-taking. It also requires a capacity to acknowledge mistakes or shortcomings undefensively.
Experience shows that more emphasis on test scores drives teachers to teach narrowly what they think will be on the test, often by trying to anticipate specific test questions or by teaching classes that mimic the precise kinds of questions the tests are likely to ask. Gaming the test, not learning, is more apt to become the objective. Also, instead of being an incentive to improve and collaborate, efforts to rate teachers can increase competition. This can drive people to trust and share less and to emphasize image over substance. None of these developments is helpful for schools that are trying to encourage teachers to work together so they develop their common capacity to teach students to think well, to solve complex problems and to engage in other important learning.
Under the tenure system, are low performing teachers still guaranteed their jobs?
None of this has anything to do with tenure.
If we do implement a system to rank teachers based on student performance, what will we do with this data?
We'll have to see how the dynamics play out as we discuss these matters with teachers in the course of the year.
Anything else you would like to add?
Race To The Top and these new requirements continue a pattern of growing federal intrusion into territory that's Constitutionally reserved to the states. They also show the increasingly heavy hand of State control at work in determining policies and practices that have historically been the province of local boards of education.
The broad national problem of education inequality calls for urgent action. We recognize that some school districts require outside intervention, and, especially, that they need more appropriate resourcing, if they're to provide their students even an adequate education. That's why our board of education voted to support the State's Race to the Top proposal to Washington.
However, I subsequently wrote the Commissioner of Education to express our concern about an ongoing strategy of applying State policies uniformly and without distinction when rational distinctions do exist. The continuing erosion of local authority is neither necessary nor wise, especially when it needlessly imposes more procedures on top of systems that already function at a high level and when it impedes local efforts to improve children's learning. I offered to work with the State to help push the boundaries of excellent practice and to support our sister school districts where possible.
I hope to receive a positive response from Albany in the future.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Calvin C., September 09, 2010
-
- +2
-
-
written by David Singer, September 08, 2010
Yet the question Dr. McGill failed to respond to-- the need for tenure reform -- remains on the cutting room floor. You saw the fiasco of our current tenure system play out in Mamaroneck last year -- where a teacher was denied tenure and then students and parents mobilized in support of granting that teacher tenure. In the ridiculous system we currently have -- all probationary teachers are either granted tenure or are fired after 3 years -- there's virtually no middle ground on this. So if a school district has any doubt whatsoever whether a teacher is going to be a great teacher -- that teacher really should not get tenure -- because then -- as the question was put to Dr. McGill, low performing teachers are rarely, if ever able to be fired.
You will never get rid of tenure -- nor should you -- it does provide a valuable check against a nepostic school board from creating an incestuous hiring hall for friends and family. On the other hand -- up until about 15 or 20 years ago -- the probationary period for teachers was 5 years -- and then shortened to 3. So go back to 5 years -- and then have some sort of renewable tenure evaluation process occur for each teacher every 5 years. These are simple reforms that should be enacted and would provide much more meaningful reform than what's been done by our state lawmakers. In addition, when a teacher is brought up on charges (yes, that's what it's called when a district seeks to fire a tenured teacher) -- the process, called 3020A, is markedly biased in favor of the employee. That process should be revised to create a more level playing field.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Arnold F. Fege, September 08, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
