Difficult Times, Difficult Decisions

 

Okay, let's start by saying that every decision, even how to approach a visit to the grocery store, is more difficult during these days of community spread. And we've been reminded of this innumerable times by civic leaders, real leaders and those posing as such. These are hard decisions. So hard. Nobody can dispute that.

If we've learned anything, we know there is no easy out when dealing with a highly contagious virus. Political posturing is lost on Covid-19. But by magnifying the difficulty of a decision, we also construct a hedge for making the wrong decision. It becomes exponentially more important to make every effort to turn a difficult decision-making process into the right decision.

Some wrong decisions are minimal, i.e. installing a "learning initiative" that doesn't work and is nearly impossible to implement. Nobody dies. Good teachers can ignore it effectively enough to still teach well. Other wrong decisions, i.e., the Iraq War, leads to hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, and ongoing wars that kill and maim young people for generations.

If nothing else, can we agree that difficult decisions regarding the health, safety and the potential for suffering and death should be a top priority to get right the first time? 

Leaders often emerge during trying times, and not always from expected sources. A CEO at one of Springfield's big hospitals, for example, has been an amazing source of information and encouragement for the community. City Council overcame a virtual congregation of weirdos and miscreants, all spouting strange ideas about personal freedoms and demonic influences, before finally making the difficult decision to enact a mask ordinance. 

Unfortunately, other civic leaders have equivocated, cited tilted surveys and attempted to find a non-existent sweet spot between medical science and political crackpottery, always a precursor to a terrible decision. In my opinion, this is what Springfield's school leaders have done.

We all know by now, public schools have become the magical balm for every societal affliction, be it poverty, nutritional deficiencies, lack of health care, or lack of affordable childcare. The existing political/economic system that exponentially multiplies all these deficiencies is seldom, if ever, held accountable. It's a wicked chain reaction that is dumped on administrators, teachers and staff to work through. 
(And let's not even talk about how schools are "scored" as educational institutions amid this malaise.)

Here's the deal. Nobody on Springfield's school board signed up for a leadership role during a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic that has afflicted millions of American and caused over 170,000 deaths (and counting). This is far beyond their customary role as cheerleaders for their superintendent's amazing educational schematics: to make Springfield Schools the envy of Nixa or Ozark or Willard or some other district that is nothing at all like Springfield.

When faced with approving a plan to address how to reach/teach 24,000 students during a pandemic, a majority of the school board deferred to their superintendent to come up with a plan. He created a huge committee of 70+ (ever been a member of a huge committee?), ran a plan by them. Approved. No need for a vote from the school board, the superintendent said. We've got this.

A couple of members, the newest and oldest serving member, registered their surprise at not being involved in perhaps the most important decision the school board has had to make since forever. "I find it odd," said one member. "Me, too," said another. The superintendent, who also doubles as board president, explained dismissively that reopening plans are not considered policy and are therefore not within the school board's purview.

Last week, a group of courageous secondary teachers penned a letter to the superintendent citing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which indicate that the rate of Covid infection in Springfield at this moment is too high for a safe opening of schools. The teachers cited a WHO report that says positive test results should be no higher than 5%. Springfield/Greene County infection rate of those tested is now at 15%. 

For educational leaders who constantly study and refer to data, best practices, etc., reviewing these particular metrics must have seemed like a buzzkill. The district response was nothing more than a meticulously worded kiss-off:

"Feedback from families, employees, and community members is especially important to SPS. We welcome engagement and are committed to reflecting upon it, incorporating feedback into our decision-making whenever possible, to benefit all those we serve."

I'll conclude by imploring the school board to somehow work around being marginalized by your superintendent and ask some questions during tomorrow's board meeting (8/18/2020, 5:30 p.m.). Maybe some questions about process, procedures, contingencies, staffing, transparency to staff and community would be in order. Is there a threshold regarding rate of infection and/or death related to school opening?

The community needs hard questions to be asked from their elected representatives on the school board precisely because these decisions are hard. This is not the time to outsource decision-making. Lives are at stake.

School Superintendents: Vital or Irrelevant?

School Superintendents: Vital or Irrelevant?

Springfield's superintendent has received yet another award from the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA). It's always nice to be recognized by your peers. Come to think of it, we haven't seen much of the superintendent during the big school bond push, which will be decided Tuesday. So, it was nice to see him receive some recognition.

Dr. Jungmann has brought a lot of change to Springfield Public Schools over the past few years. The award mentions some of the initiatives that Dr. J brought to the district: IGNiTE, LAUNCH, EXPLORE, GO CAPS, GO CSD. 

A lot of acronyms and a lot of change. How the change affected students, teachers and employees in the district seems to be an area overlooked by our school board, which I'm sure has also won awards from their peer association.

Awards are great, but besides extending the superintendent's contract and issuing closed session evaluations, does the school board really do an in-depth evaluation of the superintendent?

While teachers have been evaluated ad nauseam under the reform microscope for lo these many years, to my knowledge there has been only one sizable study regarding how superintendents affect student achievement.

A 2014 Brookings Institute study entitled "School Superintendents: Vital or Irrelevant?" yielded some interesting data that reinforced what many teachers and school employees have known for years.

Foundation: Teachers, Student Characteristics, Schools & Districts

The nine-year study concluded that the superintendent effect on student achievement, positive or negative, was "orders of magnitude smaller than that associated with any other major component of the education system." Major components outweighing superintendents would be teachers, student characteristics, schools and districts. These components would be the foundation for any school district's performance.

After four years of disruptive "innovation" at Springfield R-12, there are more than a few people who might be wishing Springfield were lucky enough to have a small magnitude superintendent about now. You know, one that looks after basic operations, hires enough staff, supports paying them a decent wage, oversees a lean administrative staff whose main job is support rather than compliance.

Of course, you can't lay all the blame for a district's downward trend on a superintendent. But if you happen to end up with one (and accompanying CFO) who arrives with a boat load of educational hubris and the singular intent to implement a bold vision that nobody really asked for, well, you may see the district's foundation start to wobble.

• Graduation rates off 2.3% from last year.
• SPS district below the state average in English and Math proficiency.
• Superintendent's Pilot School in third year (open classrooms, 1-1 tech, co-teaching, teachers re-applying for their own jobs, etc) combined for lowest scores of all 37 SPS elementary schools, only 9.4% proficiency score in Math.

While chalking up awards is wonderful for those receiving them, and world class branding provides some nice logos, acronyms and catch phrases, it appears that change for the sake of change can lead to some disastrous results. When graduation rates fall, when the superintendent's model school has the lowest comparative performance in the district, when student disciplinary issues are up, when teacher attrition is up, something is amiss. Let's not act surprised.

What If It Doesn't Work?

Early in Dr. J's tenure, I remember talking with a cabinet level administrator who had been around for several years and was heavily involved with all the new "deployments". As teacher union rep, it was part of my job to point out concerns from teachers, who were starting to leave the district in droves. They'd been advised to "Grow or Go", and a lot of them were choosing to grow somewhere else or go into early retirement.

"What if it doesn't work?" I asked.
"What do you mean?
"What if all this disruption is just disruption, and institutional chaos makes it harder for everyone to do their job? Things weren't really that bad here." I said.
He smiled and leaned back.
"It's going to work. I believe in what [the superintendent] is doing. He's a good guy,"
"I don't doubt that," I said. "But what if it doesn't work?"

That cabinet member left the district within the year. His replacement lasted one year and abruptly departed. The entire Human Resources Department left, save one employee. What little institutional memory remained was absorbed by a leadership dynamic characterized by rapid change, unforeseen consequences, and group think.

I submit for your consideration that despite all the awards, contract extensions and excellent branding, the district is in decline. New buildings will make it prettier, but it won't change the culture. Employee morale is in the tank. And it's going to take a long time to even attain previous levels of district performance, both in basic operations and in academic achievement.

Opinion: Superintendents Are Not the Answer

We need relief from the innovators, for God's sake. Superintendents and the migrant administrative class should not be inflicting their over-excited versions of education reform on students and school employees while simultaneously controlling everything a school board hears and sees.

Superintendents should not bring home 7 or 8 times what a teacher makes. Ever. They simply aren't worth that much. Public schools should not seek to parrot corporate structures that reward CEOs far beyond their worth, while marginalizing front line employees.

The idea of a teacher led school is worth studying but is unlikely to be promoted within the current admin-heavy structure.  Perhaps requiring all administrators to achieve tenure as teachers would be a modest first step.

Further, administrators shouldn't be in the business of grooming an additional layer of administrative employees at the expense of classroom teachers. These positions, almost always blessed with titles like "Learning Specialist" inevitably morph into an administrative vanity project that effectively drains money from the classroom. I've seen this so many times, but top administrators can't seem to get along without this added insulation.

A Bit of Local District History

Remember the recession of 2008? Springfield had a different superintendent with an entirely different vision. Plan, Do, Study, Act was the slogan on bulletin boards everywhere. Continuous Quality Improvement. Seems almost quaint now. 

School funding took a serious hit with the recession, but rather than cut teaching positions, that particular superintendent and BOE actually eliminated an entire swath of mid-level "Instructional Specialist" positions and saved the district over two million dollars.

Remember what happened next? Nothing. 

In fact, graduation rates and attendance increased a bit in following years. SPS remained above average by state test standards. The instructional specialists were moved back to the classroom and charged with, wait for it, providing instruction to students!

Fast forward five or six years and a new visionary superintendent comes to town and quickly moves to re-establish a middle layer of administrative nothingness. This after beginning his tenure with a 55% increase over his predecessor's ending salary. 
"The recession is over! Praise the Lord!"

To be fair, Springfield's superintendent was surprisingly generous in his comments about teachers as a response to the recent airing of the district's low MAP scores - although the timing and context is perhaps a bit telling.

"It's only becoming more difficult as expectations rise and more things are piled on the backs of educators on an annual basis," he told the News-Leader. He failed to acknowledge that his own attempts to innovate (IGNiTE et al) dumped an extraordinary weight of disruptive chaos on SPS teachers and employees.

Where Not to Look for Solutions

If our schools are screwed up, and some of them surely are, where do we look for solutions? Do we look for another innovative miracle worker superintendent to possibly lead us down another expensive rabbit hole? A school board blessed with leadership experts who seem more adept at following?

Do we cast our fate to a state agency pushing standardized tests and time-wasting teacher evals while performing a political high wire act with a governor whose majority party is, ahem, inherently hostile to public schools and would just as soon privatize the whole thing and turn them into Christian Madrassas, or something? More choices please!

No, our schools are not going to be improved by state or federal policy changes anytime soon, though adequate funding would be nice. The superintendent study actually revealed how we improve our schools. We do it through advocating for teachers, students and community. Not the Good Morning Springfield community, where superintendents and board members live. We're talking about the community of Springfield parents, students, teachers, custodians, school secretaries, school nurses, counselors, the people who interact with each other daily in our schools. That, and maybe vote out some worthless state legislators.

By now, all of us - even the school board - should be starting to recognize what doesn't work.

YOU MUST STOP AT THE END OF THIS SECTION!

Standardized tests. As a teacher, I wasted many a day administering these tools of the devil to children who, like their teachers and principals, were merely doing what they were told by those above them on the education totem. People talk a lot about local control of schools, but it's funny how widely accepted state mandated tests have become with barely a whimper of protest. 

The picture above is sort of quaint, pencil with bubble test. Tests are administered by computer now. Bland as hell. Unimaginative. Screen gazing. A broken pencil at least expresses something.

I did everything I could to let my middle school students know that their teacher didn't care about this test. I read the instructions in a comically threatening samurai voice ala John Belushi.

"YOU MUST STOP AT THE END OF THE SECTION AND CLOSE THE BOOKLET!"

We even created a class gesture to go along with a chant of "UP Your MAP Scores!", for which I probably could have been reprimanded if not fired. I remember the English Second Language (ESL) teacher asking me about it after a class full of Romanian and Vietnamese students displayed the gesture for her with great glee. What are you doing? Who taught you that? Ah, middle school.

Test prep included covering the door window with brown paper, which seemed ridiculous. Bulletin boards, possibly containing helpful info, were also covered. It felt like an intruder drill. The intruder, in this case, would be the Department of Elementary & Secondary Education (DESE). The weapon was the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP). No one was killed, but the learning environment was seriously wounded.

As an advocate for teachers and students living in the real world, I submit that the MAP test is the scourge of public education in this state. If parents were really paying attention and weren't stressing over their job, kids, bills, health issues, prison, being deported or worse, they would rise up and lead a massive boycott of MAP testing.

Do people realize that, by the time MAP scores are finally released, the teacher is already involved in a new school year with different students? It's like receiving the results from an autopsy to remind everyone that somebody died a year ago. Yet the autopsy proceeds, all hands on deck, until all the data is appropriately parsed and any accountability, especially at the administrative level, is assertively and effectively dodged.

If Score Are Low, If Scores Are High

If MAP scores are low, it's because we cannot measure what's truly important. If scores are high, we celebrate their importance and claim that our schools are successful.

Ask an administrator about standardized tests, and they'll sigh and say, "This is the world we live in," or some such thing. Then they'll busy themselves scouring test data for nuggets of insight. Lucky for them, the world we live in rewards them pretty well for their sighing compliance.

Inverse rule of measuring: If you cannot measure what's truly important, one must place undue importance on what can be measured.

MAP tests do not measure physical health, mental health, nutrition, resilience, creativity, kindness or compassion. Nor do they measure the acceptance and trust that grows between teacher and student, even those unfortunate enough to be working under pressure in state targeted schools.

Thought exercise: If a school is determined to be a failure through the lens of a failed assessment tool, can it then be deemed successful?

One Salient Piece of Data

This. Year after year: Students living in higher income areas have higher levels of proficiency. Students in poverty-stricken neighborhoods struggle with basic skills.

This is perhaps the one salient piece of data that every standardized test proves true, yet it is effectively swept under the rug by school boards and education leaders out of political expediency. A task force of usual suspects will surround the issue and provide a report. End of story.

Issues like minimum wage and Medicaid expansion that would make substantive differences for the poor are off limits and considered far too political, a tacit acknowledgement that our political/economic system still favors those living in the "proficient" neighborhoods.

No, we'll pay top dollar for an expert speaker on the effects of poverty. Their insights will amaze us. Teachers will be required to take mandatory sessions from a diversity expert (person of color) to help them learn how to talk to and teach poor kids. Early Childhood Education will be the answer, just you wait and see - along with generous charity grants for shoes and coats. The charity will receive high praise for their work. Look at those numbers!

Most poor kids are pre-disqualified from attending what are termed "choice" programs in my city. Discipline issues, you know. (No, it's not racial bias. We've trained the teachers.) And attendance, of course. Poor kids tend to move a lot, something completely out of their control. And even if they did qualify with good behavior and attendance, lack of transportation becomes the ultimate disqualifier.

For the most part, parents from poor neighborhood in this town cannot choose "choice" programs for their kids to attend. It's the same reason their kids don't participate in youth sports programs. They either can't afford it or can't get there, or both. As with standardized testing, it's just not set up for them