Looking for administrative cuts first

Soft Research

Education, if it were a real business or medical practice, would have been out of business a long time ago. True research must be backed by valid and standardized methods. Educational research has been accused of “making it up as they go.” They do not have to base anything on valid research.

Take, for example, the paper written circa 2003 by George Leef of the North Carolina Education Alliance. That paper was titled, “National Board Certification: Is North Carolina Getting Its Moneys Worth.” It was a very well thought out paper. It was based on data obtained through the NBPTS. The portfolio studied by Mr. Leef was one for a Language Arts Teacher seeking NBPTS Certification. You can Google the title and read the document itself.

The cost for this certification is substantial. There is a $65 application fee (non-refundable) as well as $2500 per applicant for application. That total is $2565. Presently, in NC, there are 15,686 NBPTS Teachers. That means that the taxpayers of NC have shelled out $40,234,590 for NBPTS applicants. NBPTS boasts that some 2 out of 3 applicants do not make status the first attempt. That triples the cost. Also, this does not include the 12% pay raise these teachers get for 10 years.

NBPTS has attempted to “prove its worth” over the years. In one study it was pointed out that math classes had scored better with NBPTS teachers than with other math teachers. In the end it was two elementary school classes somewhere in the mid-west that had been documented. NBPTS has also commissioned reports to prove their worth. Some results came back positive and others not as positive. Either way, there is still much controversy exists as to whether or not this initiative does anything to help students.

Another initiative has sprung up called Positive Behavior Support (PBS). In some schools this means that while still providing consequences for inappropriate behavior PBS “celebrates” good behavior. In other school systems it is interpreted to mean that schools no longer punish bad behavior. For example, one school system advertises PBS in this way: “PBS changes how schools respond to students, improving student behavior by reinforcing desired behaviors and eliminating inadver¬tent reinforcements for problem behavior.” Being open to interpretation one might say that PBS means to eliminate consequences for bad behavior. That is exactly what is being done in many schools that have adopted this “program.”

One school system advertises in this way: Positive Behavior Support is a new initiative to XXXXXX County Schools and it is growing by leaps and bounds. Positive Behavior Support (PBS) is a new approach to discipline and the creation of a safe learning environment that has the potential to address the longstanding needs of all children. PBS is not a program, but a system, based on decades of behavioral and biomedical research. However, the “research” is never published.

In early 2000 a group called Middle Start (apparently designed for middle schools) began going around the country advertising a new initiative. Once again, they touted research for their success. However, three schools offered as proof of the effectiveness turn out to be less than stellar collectively.

One school actually falls to less than half of the passing rate on standardized tests compared to where they were prior to the initiative being implemented. The trademark of Middle Start is something called ABCI pronounced (ABC eye). The idea behind this is to never give a child less than a C. This means that you never “hurt a child’s feelings.” If an entire school system uses this then it may be fair. However, if one school uses this initiative and no other schools do then the school using this initiative will carry an unfair advantage over the other schools. For example, the football coach at school B (using ABCI) does not have to deal with academic requirements. The other schools in that conference do.

In the Middle Start report the three schools in the spotlight had apparently never done “teaming.” When teaming is used (meaning having a close nit team of core teachers in math, science, social studies and language arts) there is a great deal of cooperation between these teachers. This seems to be true with most middle schools, but it is not new.

In one of the three schools some gains were achieved in math. However, in the report from Middle Start it is pointed out that an entire new math series was adopted for that school. The school reports for achievement can be found on the Internet. Strangely, the Middle Start Report does not come up on searches.

In middle school a principal is a driving force for the school. In many systems principals are given such autonomy they can do or say anything they desire and be free of consequences if they are wrong. Any teacher that finds something questionable about a new directive or new initiative will be humiliated or will be somehow discredited.

There really is no research done in education that would meet the criteria set forth in all other venues for validity and credibility. On the contrary, a teacher with great success will be shoved into the corner if what they have done goes against the feel good educational system.

Have the Board members considered giving up their small salaries (except for Tedesco - that's the only job he has). Every little bit helps.

Why not publish the salaries of the 20 highest paid employees in Central Office?