Chancellor Klein visited Australia last week to discuss New York City’s education reforms. During his seven day trip to the country, Chancellor Klein met with government leaders, education officials, philanthropic organizations, and media outlets to describe New York City’s approach to educational change and innovation.
“It was an extraordinary trip,” Chancellor Klein said. “Australia is embracing school accountability, pushing for high standards, and thinking big. It was very exciting to share my perspective and learn about efforts going on so far away from New York City.”
To read about Chancellor Klein’s trip, click here, here, and here.(see articles below -Ed)
What People Are Saying…
About Mayoral Control
“The positive changes I've seen have come about in large part because of a law that gave control of the city's school system to the mayor. When the state Legislature passed mayoral control in 2002, I thought it was a bold act of political courage by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and other leaders. It made me believe that we could rise above politics and deliver wholesale reform. And Mayor Bloomberg has risen to the challenge, working tirelessly to come up with new solutions to old problems. The city has created safer schools staffed by qualified teachers and run by engaged principals - all of which has resulted in increased graduation rates and test scores
“We have all benefited from the wisdom and courage of the elected officials who put this system in place. Now, parents and New Yorkers who care about the future of the city's public schools must remind them what is at stake: We are at risk of letting the progress we have made slip away.” –Geoffrey Canada, Daily News Op-Ed, November 23, 2008
About Bold Action in America’s Urban Schools
“We know for a fact that large, urban cities are not working, and they're particularly not working for kids that grew up in poverty, kids of color, recent immigrants. And those kids, no matter what you look at—you look at the NAEP scores over the last 25 years, since ‘A Nation at Risk’—basically, that gap has not moved. And it's being intensified by a global achievement gap as well.
“So, to me, what you need in education is bold action, and school board politics are not the politics of bold action. It's too easy for interest groups, in small-bore elections, to impact outcomes. So, what [New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg did, following on what a couple of other mayors did, I thought, was really significant in terms of saying the mayor's got to be responsible, and the city's got to know. I mean, no one would think of turning safety over to a board; the chief executive of the city should be responsible for safety. Well, why shouldn't he or she be responsible for education?” –US News & World Report, December 4, 2008
Worth Reading…
“Accountability is not just about measuring results, rewarding success and doling out consequences for failure; it is also about giving schools tools and resources to help them measure how well they are helping students learn and devise strategies to improve. That is why we have created a system of periodic assessments allowing teachers to measure what students understand and where they need more help. That is why we have invested in teaching our teachers how to use data effectively to advance student learning. It is also why we have created a world-class data-management system, which allows teachers and principals to track student performance, analyse results and connect via the internet with educators in other schools across the city to share ideas and strategies.
“Six years ago, roughly half the city's fourth-graders and a third of the eighth-graders were meeting or exceeding state standards in maths and reading. Today, seven in 10 New York City public school students in years three to eight are meeting or exceeding state standards in maths, and almost six in 10 are meeting or exceeding these standards in English language arts. Since 2002 our graduation rate has increased by more than 10 percentage points. It is now the highest it has been in decades. What does all this add up to? A new culture of learning with a strong focus on student achievement, plus a new focus on working together to put the interests of our children first.” –Joel Klein, The Sydney Morning Herald Op-Ed, November 24, 2008
“Can Barack Obama bring change to American education? The answer is: Yes he can.
“Real accountability is about standing up for children. The adults are supposed to be teaching kids something, and accountability demands hard, objective measures -- through sophisticated testing and information systems -- of how well they are actually doing that. Good performance needs to be rewarded. But poor performance needs to be uprooted: Schools need to be reconstituted, teachers need to be moved out of the classroom, jobs need to be put at risk -- because if they aren't, children continue to be victimized.
“It all boils down to a simple question. Will President Obama have the courage to unite with the rebels inside his party, champion the interests of children over the interests of adults, and be a true leader who really means it when he talks about change? We can only stay tuned. And have the audacity of hope.” –Terry M. Moe, Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, November 24, 2008
“…We must start with the recognition that, despite decade after decade of reform efforts, our public K-12 schools have not improved. We can point to individual schools and some entire districts that have advanced, but the system as a whole is still failing. High school and college graduation rates, test scores, the number of graduates majoring in science and engineering all are flat or down over the past two decades. Disappointingly, the relative performance of our students has suffered compared to those of other nations. As a former CEO, I am worried about what this will mean for our future workforce.
“This is a complex problem, but countless experiments and analyses have clearly indicated we need to do four straightforward things to bring fundamental changes to K-12 education: 1) Set high academic standards for all of our kids, supported by a rigorous curriculum. 2) Greatly improve the quality of teaching in our classrooms, supported by substantially higher compensation for our best teachers. 3) Measure student and teacher performance on a systematic basis, supported by tests and assessments. 4) Increase "time on task" for all students; this means more time in school each day, and a longer school year.
“Everything else either does not matter (e.g., smaller class sizes) or is supportive of these four steps (e.g., vastly improve schools of education). Lack of effort is not the cause of our 30-year inability to solve our education problem. Not only have we had all those thousands of studies and task forces, but we have seen many courageous and talented individuals pushing hard to move the system. Leaders such as Joel Klein (New York City), Michelle Rhee (Washington, D.C.) and Paul Vallas (New Orleans) have challenged the system, and elected officials from both sides of the political spectrum have also fought valiantly for change.” – Louis V. Gerstner, Jr, Wall Street Journal, Op-Ed, December 1, 2008
This email was sent to betsy@parentadvocates.org by New York City Department of Education
52 Chambers St | New York | NY | 10007
US educationist talks tough on schools
Dan Harrison and Farrah Tomazin
November 26, 2008 - 12:02AM
LINK
THE tough-talking New Yorker who inspired Julia Gillard's education revolution has called for a shake-up of the American school system amid renewed speculation that President-elect Barack Obama will choose him as his education secretary.
New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein is in Australia as a guest of the Federal Government to talk about his efforts to lift student results by making schools more accountable — ideas Ms Gillard is using as a template for changes to Australian schools.
Mr Klein nominated two priorities for repairing American schools, which he said were not adequate for the challenges children faced today: the development of national standards and assessments and a huge federal investment in teacher quality.
"The magic ingredient in education is teacher effectiveness … and our kids in high-needs communities do not remotely get their fair share of high-quality teachers," he said.
"I would incentivise the greatest teachers to take on the greatest challenges."
In his speech, Mr Klein said his controversial methods, including standardised testing, had transformed the culture of his city's schools from one of excuses to one of performance.
But Australians are divided over Mr Klein's approach. Vicki Froomes, one Melbourne educator who worked with the New York schools Mr Klein threatened to close, said teachers would "teach to the test".
Debney Park Secondary College principal Michael O'Brien said results should be compared only against those with similar backgrounds.
US education evangelist calls for culture of performance
Christian Kerr, November 26, 2008, The Australian
SUCCESS in education is all about hard work, New York City Schools chancellor Joel Klein has declared.
"The philosophy is quite straightforward," said the US education evangelist, who has caught the eye of federal Education Minister Julia Gillard.
"There's a series of skills and knowledge that our children have to master, master at the interface where teaching and learning occurs, between teachers and students. "There is very hard work by both parties. We need to stay with that simple model."
In a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday, Mr Klein bemoaned the multitude of "fads and gimmicks that we try to deal with".
"Higher-order thinking: I hear about this all the time," he said. "Problem-solving, higher-order thinking, it will be necessary for the 21st century.
"Well, let me assure you, kids who don't do math, kids who don't understand algebra, kids who are not fluent readers, they're not doing higher-order thinking.
"We've just got to be candid about that and do the tough work."
Mr Klein talked about transforming New York's schools from "a culture of excuse to a culture of performance" with a mix of tough love and can-do.
"People tell me you're never going to fix education in America until you fix poverty," he said. "I think those people have it exactly backward. I don't think we're going to fix poverty in America until we fix education. In order to do that you do have to have a culture of performance."
Mr Klein, who has drawn the ire of teachers' unions, described accountability as a pillar of the process. This involved giving school principals more responsibility for outcomes and publicising the results.
He rejected claims his reforms had not lifted standards. "State tests show that we're outperforming the rest of the state and everyone else. The overall story is one of success," he said.
A Conversation With NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein
Klein discussed the roles of city government and the private sector in school reform
Posted December 4, 2008
LINK
"America's High Schools: What Works? What's Next?" These questions were the focus of U.S.News & World Report's first education summit held in October 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. U.S. News invited Joel Klein, chancellor of New York City schools, to discuss these questions based on his experience with the NYC school system—a system that encompasses 1.1 million students, 83,000 teachers, and a $15 billion budget. Last year, the New York City school system was awarded the Broad Prize for Urban Education, one of the nation's most prestigious awards for improved urban school districts.
The following are excerpts from Klein's conversation with U.S. News Editor Brian Kelly.
On what works in high school reform:
The most important thing that we can do to change high school outcomes is improve the education of kids before they get to high school. People who have a high school-only strategy are going to fail. And the second most important thing is, we have got to finally crack open the nut and say, these are the standards and these are the assessments of what it means to have successfully completed high school. Anybody can get you a high school degree; all they need to do is keep lowering the standards, and more and more kids will graduate. We're fooling ourselves, and it's time to get serious about national standards and national assessments.
Some of the things we did do there were very powerful, like this alternative certification, where we brought in every year 2,000 teachers from Teach for America and other programs like that. Those things have had a huge impact. But I just think that we're kidding ourselves if we don't understand the dimensions of the challenge and that it's going to take bold, controversial leadership that's willing to take risks—and when you take risks, not everything you do is going to turn out exactly how you want it. But the status quo is not working for poor kids; it's not working for a lot of kids in America.
On No Child Left Behind:
I think it's been very influential. Accountability implies there will be winners and losers, but in the absence of it, you're not going to move large systems forward, so, for that, I give NCLB good marks. I do think we could change the accountability system. I do think having 50 different states with 50 different sets of standards and 50 different assessments makes no sense.
Look around, globally. The world in which Intel competes is a world in which there's going to be increasing global competition, and our competitors are demanding more and more rigor in their standards. You know, I know the old song that we'll never have national standards; you know, the Republicans don't do national, and the Democrats don't do standards. But this is a time of change in our nation. And we've got to get serious about this, and I really think there is an opportunity here. One way to ensure national assessments is to do it at a national level and to bring people together and to make the kind of investments, and one way to ensure the best standards is to really benchmark our standards against global standards.
NCLB does focus on testing, and while I think these tests need to be improved, I will tell you the amazing thing in our city is, if I show you eighth-grade test scores, I can predict, almost to a percentage point, what the likelihood-of-graduation rate will be. So, people want to debunk testing a lot, and I'll be the first to tell you that tests need to be improved—that's why I want national assessments—on the other hand, we're kidding ourselves if we don't think these tests are giving us a reasonably accurate prediction of whether we're getting our kids ready for—at least in New York City—ready for graduation with a regent's diploma, which is a meaningful standard.
On the role of city government in school reform:
We know for a fact that large, urban cities are not working, and they're particularly not working for kids that grew up in poverty, kids of color, recent immigrants. And those kids, no matter what you look at—you look at the NAEP scores over the last 25 years, since "A Nation at Risk"—basically, that gap has not moved. And it's being intensified by a global achievement gap as well.
So, to me, what you need in education is bold action, and school board politics are not the politics of bold action. It's too easy for interest groups, in small-bore elections, to impact outcomes. So, what [New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg did, following on what a couple of other mayors did, I thought, was really significant in terms of saying the mayor's got to be responsible, and the city's got to know. I mean, no one would think of turning safety over to a board; the chief executive of the city should be responsible for safety. Well, why shouldn't he or she be responsible for education?
And its impact is enormous, because, basically, if you're going to get bold action, the person with the most political capital to spend—the person who is going to lead from the front—is more likely to do it. And if you look around the country, where have you seen some of the boldest actions? You've seen it in places like Boston, Chicago, New York, and certainly, now, in D.C. And I assure you that the kind of things that are going on in New York and D.C. wouldn't go on in a school board environment.
On the private sector's role in school reform:
It's not the amount of money, although we've been very fortunate, and in the six years that I've been doing this, we've raised $350 million. That's a lot of dollars, and from my end, from being in business, I view that as our R&D money—as our venture capital. When I wanted to start a leadership training program, I happened to take the view that the way to reform the school system is to reform the school. People don't go to a district or a region or all the other things: They send their kids to a school.
So, to me, school reform is all about a system of great schools, not a great school system. In order to do that, you have to have great school leaders. The magic ingredient in the quality of a kid's education is the teacher. The magic ingredient in school reform is the quality of the school leader. If you don't have great leadership, it will not happen at the school—I don't care who runs the district and what the finances are. So, we've started a $70 million, three-year leadership academy. And I didn't want to, and I think I would have had a hard time, taking that $70 million out of my operating budget. So, I was able to go to the philanthropic and business community to raise that.
I'm a big believer in charter [schools]. When I started, we had 16. Now we have—next year, when we open school, we'll have over 100. There was a lot of pulling teeth to get that done. I'm a big believer because I believe competition works, and there's not a person in this room who hasn't had a choice in public education for their kid. I mean, you may have been happy with the school in your neighborhood, but if you weren't, you'd find a choice, and I believe kids who grow up in poverty deserve choices, too, so, we've been really big on these charters.
When I came to New York, it turned out the Gates Foundation was supporting new, small schools, and with the support of the Gates Foundation, we have developed a wholly different and entirely different approach to our high school portfolio. Basically, what we do now is highly differentiated, small schools—what we call transfer schools for kids who didn't make it at their first schools; we're working on a very sophisticated approach to career and technical; we have learning-to-work programs for kids who have dropped back or dropped out that we try to re-engage; we have young adult borough centers where kids can come in the evening to pick up credits; et cetera, et cetera. And the Gates Foundation has given us well over $100 million over the last six years to implement what I believe is the most radical high school restructuring to have taken place in this country.
On school size:
The size depends on the nature of the challenge. As I said, Stuyvesant High School, which attracts kids from all over our city, is large but has got a highly motivated and highly prepared student body. On the other hand, I've got lots of schools in the Bronx and in Brooklyn where kids were coming two, three, four years behind, and in that environment—3,000 or 4,000 kids—it won't work. We were getting 25, 30, 35 percent graduation rates. We broke those schools down—a 3,000-person school into six 500-kid schools—and we're getting entirely different results.
The other thing that I find worked for kids who come from challenging environments is high expectations. Believe me when I tell you that the schools are filled with people who set low expectations, and the kids live up to it. And how you create an environment of high expectations. And then, as we move forward, what I would like to see is much, much more connection to the use of technology, so that you can individualize what's going on for the kid and move away from a kind of standardized, one-teacher-and-26-kids-in-a-classroom approach.
The current economy's impact on schools:
Look, nobody likes these cuts, obviously, and we've—as you say—over the last six years, we've invested heavily in increasing teacher salaries and creating new schools. We'll have to be smarter. I think there will be some difficult times ahead for us. People who, you know, will have to, in certain instances, give up programs that they want. But basically, what we've tried to do is streamline the bureaucracy—we've already cut about $350 million, and by the time this next round is over, it will probably be another significant chunk—and then let schools decide. We've gone to student-based budgeting. So, I don't budget schools; I budget students. And then, if you've got a lot of special-ed students, more for that; if you've got a lot of English-language learners, more for that; if you've got level 1 students, more for that. And so, the kid carries the dollars through the system.
And then I say to our principals, you figure out how to budget this thing. So, if you want additional teachers and lowering class size, that's a strategy. If you want extended day, if you want to bring in professional development coaches—and the same principles will apply in a budget-cutting or belt-tightening environment. But don't get me wrong, I mean—that's going to create challenges. And I don't think we are, as a people, overinvested in education. I don't think we're wisely invested in education, but I think if we invested wisely, we could continue to invest and get good returns.
Joel Klein and the Australian Press
There have been several articles written about Joel Klein in the Australian newspapers recently due to his visiting the country at the end of November. I felt that the stories about the success of Klein in New York City were not factual, so I wrote a letter:
I am a parent advocate in New York City, the mother of four children who were, and are presently in the New York City public school system, and Editor of an online newsmagazine called “Parentadvocates.org” (http://parentadvocates.org/).
Your article on November 29, 2008 describing the reforms of Joel Klein is misleading and simply not factual.
Any reform is only as good as the success of its implementation. The so-called reforms of Mr. Klein have been total failures, and the children of New York City have been harmed forever by the mess created. A brief summary includes at least four re-organizations of the New York City Department of Education, with non-educators holding major posts in the system, none of whom care about the high standards of public education that New York City proudly held in the sixties.
Teachers and students are being thrown out on a daily basis for no reason other than that they are too black, too much in need of special services, annoying, wear glasses, or talk with an accent, etc. The discrimination against any and all persons of color, above the age of forty, disabled, or otherwise impaired (say, don’t speak English) is rampant, visible to the naked eye, and discussed widely…except in the New York City press, which disseminates public press releases that are called “accountability” reports. Thus, the need for your readers to see the blogs and websites describing in detail the appalling lack of transparency of the New York City Board of Education.
New York City, the largest public school system in America, has no school board to complain to. Joel Klein and Mayor Michael Bloomberg made sure that any possible forum for dissent was removed from the people of New York City, so that the “reforms” could go through without opposition.
To hold Joel Klein and/or anything that he has done for the children of New York City in any esteem is ludicrous.
Betsy Combier
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
betsy@parentadvocates.org
New York City
Below is a memo sent by Joel Klein to the Principals, and the articles from Australian newspapers:
From the Principal's Weekly: Chancellor's Memo
Dear Colleagues,
In the past few years, New York City has set clearer standards for schools
and school leaders; we've created tools to measure how well schools and
students are performing; and we've implemented strategies to hold schools
accountable for how well they help students learn and make academic
progress. As we've taken these steps, you and I have talked a lot about
adopting new approaches to accountability and transparency.
Today, I'd like to tell you a bit about what's happening in Australia, a
country that faces some of the same challenges that New York City faces. The
government has developed national tests in literacy and numeracy. Based on
those tests, it will be designing a growth model accountability system,
similar to our Progress Reports. This information will be available to
families and the public so people have access to information about how well
schools are serving students. Australia is also developing training programs
for principals similar to our Leadership Academy. And it is exploring the
use of data to inform instruction. During my visit, for example, I observed
a data system similar to ARIS that is being used by the state Department of
Education in New South Wales.
Here is a link to a November 29 editorial from The Australian about the
school reforms and my visit:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24722323-16741,00.html.
Here is an Op-Ed I wrote that was printed in the Sydney Morning Herald,
outlining our Children First reforms here in New York.
You should be proud that what we're doing here in New York City is being
recognized on the other side of the globe.
Sincerely,
Joel I. Klein
Chancellor
Pulling themselves up by their bootstraps
November 29, 2008
Article from: The Australian
Julia Gillard's reforms will empower schools
LINK
THE "children first" focus of New York's school system reform that Joel Klein, chancellor of the city's Education Department, explained during his visit to Sydney this week, is based on three principles: leadership, empowerment and accountability. These are the hallmarks of the Rudd Government's education reforms, which Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard is progressing with an effectiveness that would have seemed impossible a year ago. As a member of the Left, albeit a highly pragmatic one, Ms Gillard is well-placed to execute change. The Howard government, hamstrung by hostile teachers' unions and bureaucrats, talked the same language but faced such a wall of opposition that it could barely scratch the surface.
In putting her policies into practice, Ms Gillard is creating the conditions to empower schools in poorer areas to help themselves. Disadvantaged students will be the winners. This, the real education revolution, is about much more than culture wars. It is not a left-right debate. But the strident left-wing criticism it is attracting reflects how deeply some on that side of the ideological divide are mired in 1970s thinking, unable to grasp the role of metrics in improving service delivery to those who need it most.
Like black and Hispanic students in New York, whose life prospects have been enhanced by Klein's reforms, it is students in Australia's poorer postcodes, including outer-metropolitan areas like Campbelltown, Sunshine and Logan City, who have the most at stake. Too many schools have wallowed in neglect and underperformance for generations, reinforcing unemployment, welfare dependency and social problems.
Philosophically, Klein's approach resembles that of lawyer Noel Pearson, who eons ago recognised that rigid service-provider models had failed indigenous communities. Individuals and communities, he recognised, needed to be vested with responsibility for their own advancement.
The biggest challenges remain, but income management, Andrew Forrest's indigenous employment scheme and proper monitoring of health, education and child safety are beginning to show results. In a similar vein, Klein set about redressing educational failure in New York by setting high goals, implementing strategies to accomplish them and providing support to lift students' performances.
As David Nason reports today in Inquirer, Klein's approach has seen more black and Hispanic students in New York succeeding in tests than ever. Sharp reductions in the proficiency gap between them and white students have been noted. This reinforces a Centre for Independent Studies paper by Jennifer Buckingham, which found accountability and transparency in Florida has forced sustainable improvements over a decade.
Philosophically, however, this metrics-based approach appears anathema to The Sydney Morning Herald, which treated Klein's visit as a "spruik". "Will she (Julia Gillard) unquestioningly adopt the business mantra of 'standards, assessment and accountability' in the face of opposition from education experts?" Sharon Beder of Wollongong University's arts faculty wrote. The paper rounded up plenty of "experts" to agree with her.
While apparently trying to represent the views of teachers and bureaucrats ahead of the interests of students and parents, the Herald is reflecting the kind of provider capture that also disadvantages customers/taxpayers on the docks, in Aboriginal welfare and in many state health systems. Indicative of the mindset was columnist Adele Horin's gripe about "shaming struggling schools with hard-to-teach students". Notions that some students are so hard to teach that accountability measures are not worth bothering about has no place in the 21st century.
Rampant among the educational establishment are similarly twisted notions of noblesse oblige, which often leave students in poorer schools doing minimal homework compared with the four and five hours a night that many at selective state and more rigorous private schools spend at their desks.
Students, parents and teachers should have no illusions -- if Klein's approach is to succeed in Australia, it will mean harder and smarter work at school and more homework than most students are doing now. But the transformation of education systems in nations such as China and India show why it is their surest path to success. As Rupert Murdoch said in his recent Boyer lecture, instead of suggesting that their students cannot learn, such nations set high standards and expect they will be met, placing an emphasis on competition, merit and doing well on standardised tests.
The fact that in recent decades, tens of thousands of Australian parents have voted with their feet in pursuit of similar values, suggests the Gillard reforms are long overdue. The mushrooming of moderate-fee, non-government schools in outer suburbs and regional centres, many run by evangelical groups, reflects parental determination to give their children a better start in life.
Critics of public accountability as a driver of school performance frequently hold up Finland as an example to follow. Ranking highly in international tests, Finland has minimal external testing and does not publish school-by-school comparisons, to which the Rudd Government and Klein are committed. Finland's system, however, is vastly different to Australia's in important ways that render comparisons meaningless. Children start school later in Finland, and teaching is a prestigious, highly competitive profession to which only about 10 per cent of applicants are admitted. In New York, as in Australia, creating a workforce of highly skilled teachers is an important goal for the medium to long term. But as Jennifer Buckingham pointed out on these pages yesterday, it won't help the children in underperforming schools now. Accountability and insistence on standards are the surest path to better performance. Klein, however, like the Rudd Government, is also addressing the issue of teacher quality, through fast-track programs for high-calibre university graduates and increasing the best principals' salaries by as much as 25per cent. Interestingly, the man who hired Klein, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has been a member of both major political parties in the US. Profound, pragmatic educational reform spans the political and ideological divide, because it serves children's best interests.
Children first policy raises bar at New York schools
Joel Klein
November 24, 2008
LINK
Many urban school districts in the United States are inefficient and ineffective bureaucracies where authority is widely dispersed, political patronage is entrenched and no one is held responsible for student outcomes. Rigid and inconsistent rules and regulations stifle innovation and educators are not sensibly compensated. Under these conditions, it is no surprise when student achievement remains stagnant.
New York City's school system functioned in this way for decades. Schools were not safe, parents had no choices, teachers were paid far too little and were rewarded for the wrong things. Curriculums - and standards - varied by neighbourhood. Schools were unfairly funded and school leaders hobbled because they lacked the authority to make good decisions for students.
Public school culture in New York City valued compliance over innovative decision-making and accepted low expectations and finger-pointing as excuses for results in student outcomes. Results were largely stagnant at a very low level. Far too many children were failing in reading and maths, yet were pushed from grade to grade, perpetuating an acceptance of failure. The graduation rate was low and had hardly budged in decades.
Six years ago, when the Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, appointed me as chancellor of America's largest school district, we pledged to transform this broken system. Bloomberg had secured legislation giving him control over his city's school district. Since then, we have worked to create a new system that puts children first and all other (adult) interests second.
We have turned a decentralised system that lacked clear citywide standards into a system in which principals have clear performance goals and have the decision-making power and resources they need to do the best job possible in educating their students.
Our "children first" reform strategy is based on three principles: leadership, empowerment and accountability. If we have strong, prepared leaders who will attract and support great teachers, if we set high standards, and if we give leaders the tools and the support they need, as well as the power to make decisions and the resources to execute those decisions, we will change outcomes for students.
We have implemented strategies to accomplish our goals. We have worked to build leadership capacity by creating a top-tier "leadership academy" to train principals and created more rigorous mentoring and support. We have also raised principal salaries by almost 25 per cent and made principals eligible for up to $50,000 in bonuses each year for taking on the hardest jobs and being successful in helping students make progress.
We have set clear, high standards based on helping students learn - and we have created tools to measure how well schools are achieving. We created a progress report, giving each school a yearly grade of A to F. The grade is based on student performance, student progress and on schools' environments, as measured by a new survey we created, which asks all parents, teachers, and students in years 6 to 12 to assess how well the school is serving students. We also created a system of quality reviews, so each school receives an on-site evaluation by experienced educators.
Accountability is not just about measuring results, rewarding success and doling out consequences for failure; it is also about giving schools tools and resources to help them measure how well they are helping students learn and devise strategies to improve. That is why we have created a system of periodic assessments allowing teachers to measure what students understand and where they need more help. That is why we have invested in teaching our teachers how to use data effectively to advance student learning. It is also why we have created a world-class data-management system, which allows teachers and principals to track student performance, analyse results and connect via the internet with educators in other schools across the city to share ideas and strategies.
Six years ago, roughly half the city's fourth-graders and a third of the eighth-graders were meeting or exceeding state standards in maths and reading. Today, seven in 10 New York City public school students in years three to eight are meeting or exceeding state standards in maths, and almost six in 10 are meeting or exceeding these standards in English language arts. Since 2002 our graduation rate has increased by more than 10 percentage points. It is now the highest it has been in decades.
What does all this add up to? A new culture of learning with a strong focus on student achievement, plus a new focus on working together to put the interests of our children first.
Joel Klein is chancellor of New York's Education Department. He is visiting Sydney this week.
Every good parent deserves truth
Jennifer Buckingham, November 20, 2008
LINK
State governments have reams of data about schools, but parents - and anyone else interested in education - get to see little of it, at least in any meaningful form. Take this year's Higher School Certificate results. They will be released next month, but parents will again struggle to get any sense of how well particular schools are doing, as the statistics published by the NSW Department of Education are meagre, only the number of high achievers in year 12 from each school.
For the past decade, the think-tank I work for, the Centre of Independent Studies, has called for state governments to publish detailed information on all schools so parents can compare their achievements.
Earlier this year, the Federal Government announced its intention to use "co-operative federalism" to provide parents and the public with information about school performance, in the interests of "transparency and accountability". The question now is how best to go about it.
A trip to New York earlier this year by the Education Minister, Julia Gillard, was highly influential on her thinking. The New York Department of Education's schools chancellor, Joel Klein, will be in Australia next week spreading the word about his school reporting and accountability scheme.
The department gives all schools an annual report card with information and statistics, including academic performance. Each school is compared to the average for all schools in the city and to a group of "like schools" with similar demographic characteristics.
The most contentious aspect is the overall letter grade to each school - A, B, C, D or F. Schools that persistently receive failing grades face strong sanctions, including closure. The program is still in its infancy, but initial research indicates that schools given F and D grades improved performance substantially the next year.
A similar scheme was introduced in Florida in 1999. Studies of its impact found schools receiving an F made bigger improvements in in subsequent years than other schools. Florida's overall test score gains have exceeded the national average by far, and the biggest gains were for minority groups. In 1999, 53 per cent of the state's fourth-graders achieved the "basic" level or better in the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Last year, 70 per cent did. Over the same period, the proportion of students making the "advanced" level doubled.
Other countries make school performance information public to varying degrees. The OECD's report on the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment - which tests reading, maths and science - looked at the characteristics of different education systems.
It found students in schools that publicly posted their external exam results performed significantly better than students in schools that did not. That remained the case even after accounting for the demographic and socioeconomic background of students and schools.
Providing information is only part of the equation. There must be rewards and consequences. Rather than state sanctions, the best approach is for a government to set standards for educational performance, against which parents and the public can evaluate schools and make informed choices. The Florida system combines accountability with parental choice. Students in failing schools are given the option to attend one that performs better. If a school closes, it is because it has lost the confidence of parents and the community, not because of government decree.
Performance reporting inevitably raises the spectre of league tables. Most arguments against reporting are based on concerns about low-performing schools, and the possibility they will be stigmatised. What this argument really says is that no one should know students in low-performing schools are getting a poor education. But students in these schools have the most to gain. Identifying them may cause schools some initial pain, but history suggests that the long-term outcomes are positive.
Test results can be influenced by factors beyond the control of schools, but there are ways to provide information which is sensitive to such circumstances. And while there is much to like about the New York and Florida systems, we don't have to adopt them wholesale. Australia could have a system of school report cards which are easy to understand, but without the contentious grades. We can learn from the flaws of other countries' systems, and create a reporting system that is as meaningful and fair.
Parents and the public have been kept in the dark too long.
Jennifer Buckingham is a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney.
But then, some are seeing through the clouds of misinformation:
Don't mimic US school model: experts
Anna Patty Education Editor
November 25, 2008
LINK
EDUCATION authorities have warned the Federal Government against following the New York education model, saying it has failed to deliver reported improvements in student results.
The architect of the system, the chancellor of the city's education department, Joel Klein, is in Australia this week at the invitation of the Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, who wants to embrace his model of publicly comparing the test results of schools. While Mr Klein says student scores have vastly improved under his watch, analysis by Diane Ravitch, a research professor of education at New York University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the Brookings Institution in Washington, shows the scores have been mainly flat or declining.
A former Productivity Commission economist, Trevor Cobbold, the convener of Save Our Schools, said reported improvements in New York schools had been artificially inflated and lacked credibility.
"The results of the national assessment of education progress administered by the US Department of Education show the student achievement in New York City has stagnated since 2003," he said. "Adopting such a model in Australia would lead to inaccurate and misleading comparisons of school performance."
An Australian education authority, Brian Caldwell, professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne, said: "If we were looking for international examples, we should be looking at countries like Finland that has no national testing scheme. Their schools operate with a high degree of autonomy and they focus on making sure their teachers are well trained."
Angelo Gavrielatos, of the Australian Education Union, said the US performed 29th in science and 35th in mathematics in OECD assessments.
"The New York model is not one Australia should emulate."
Mr Klein said national testing in the US required a smaller sample than the New York tests and Professor Ravitch was "looking at selective data". "I don't put any validity in her analysis," he said.
Ms Gillard said she agreed with Rupert Murdoch's criticism of the Australian public education system as a disgraceful failure. She endorsed his recommendation that corporations should become more involved in forming partnerships with schools in the same way News Limited had done in the US.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please do not use offensive language