Teachers Say Why They Stay

It is no mystery why teachers stay at Program Improvement schools.
Why then, are there not more proactive measures to ensure the type of issue-relevant professional development and administrative actions which would support educators in staying at low performing school sites in order to provide a more equitable education for students from high risk backgrounds?

REASONS TEACHERS STAY:

• Being dealt with as professionals
• A safe place to work
• Having a say in the content they taught and the strategies they used in their classrooms
• Ability to use their authority and make choices at their school sites, both has individuals and as groups
• Mutually respectful feeling among staff
• A principal who was encouraging and sympathetic
• Being valued by parents and the community
• Close personal relationships forged at the school site
• Frequent team-related associations with colleagues
• Love of students existed
• Feeling effective with their students
• Raising salaries and incentive programs (Posnick-Goodwin,2008;UNCG,2006).

The data gathered with my surveys and during interviews confirmed this information. Teachers especially cited their positive relationships with colleagues; effective, inspiring, and supportive administrators; doing what they felt was best for their students despite mandated curriculum; and the love of their students as reasons they stayed.

One fascinating piece of data was: though hard-to-staff schools have challenging student populations, this was seldom mentioned as the reason for leaving.

Conclusions are continually being drawn as more research is uncovered and data analyzed. However, I am beginning to see if administrators would listen and act on the common concerns and realities of PI teachers, perhaps more teachers would stay and teach.

The Making of a Low Performing School

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend Math training at the district office. You see, we adopted a new math program and must be retrained...again.

So, there I sat for 8 hours with fellow grade level teachers from throughout the district. In between deconstructing standards and comparing and contrasting the composition of problems, we had some time to chat. For the first time, in a long a time I had the chance to speak to teachers who are at "high performing schools". One gentleman enlightened me.

Let me back up.

I am at a new school site. Previous to being at my new school, my present class of students had been divided amongst three overcrowded school sites. Two of these sites are in the top three of the high performing elementary schools in our district. The other school is middle-of-the-road, but still not in Program Improvement.

Our campus is surrounded by new subdivisions, but intermingled within these groups of homes are neighborhoods which are less stellar, old, and quite frankly... scary. In fact, just this week, the mother of one of my students was mugged as she went outside to take out the trash. This was no knock-down-and-run crime. Her arm was broken and her eye blackened. Needless to say, her child was not interested in learning for the rest of the week.

Back to the conference:

We were talking about our students, and I was telling the gentleman, I mentioned earlier, that while I have students who are proficient, I have many who are basic and below. This man confided in me that all of the students who transferred to our school were those at the bottom of his class. This did not surprise me, as the majority of the demographics at my school lean towards students who are English Language Learners, ethnic minorities, and from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and these subgroups tend to struggle academically (while acquiring conversational and academic language, and coping with family and other issues), while those students at his school are mostly White students, with English as their primary language, from middle to upper class backgrounds ( not to say these children do not have problems, but they at least come to school speaking the language of instruction).

Read the title of this piece. Do you think it is unfair?

My research data confirms that Program Improvement schools ALL have demographics which are similar. A large majority of the students on these campuses are English Language Learners, who are ethnic minorities, and from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Those are the facts. They are indisputable.

BUT now, I must say this. While PI schools are similar in their demographics, and while crushing state mandates can drain the joy out of teaching, and make learning a much despised chore, there are campuses, though they bear the ignominious PI label which still have a positive feeling about them.

What makes the difference? I have found it is largely due to administrators who support their staff members and are realistic about the implementations and demands No Child Left Behind makes upon their staff and students.

So far, my campus still has a light feeling, though a PI label may be looming in the future, and we can feel the breath of rigid demands upon the back of our neck.

Fire or Inspire?

In one of my interviews, an educator said, and I quote, "Well, I think sending a brand new teacher into a Program Improvement school is like throwing the Christians to the lions. Seriously, you’re going in there, and you have no idea what you’re getting yourself into. I mean, even an experienced teacher coming to a PI school, I think it’s very difficult because the rules of the game have changed. "

I suggest a new hiring policy and practice in districts throughout the nation.

NEW POLICY: No first or second year teacher will be hired at Program Improvement school.

Why?

It is unfair.

Think about it. Two new teachers, equally qualifed. One is hired at a PI school. One is hired at a Non-PI school. One has a greater chance of being "let go". One has a greater chance of getting burned out and leaving their assignment.

Are there any guesses as to which one it would be?

I am surprised Teacher Union Presidents throughout the nation have not picked up on this inequity to new educators.

Let me tell you how things currently are in our district. All teachers are being hired on a temporary basis. Just today, I was told, the way things are now, a teacher gets tenure in our district in FIVE years. This was news to me. I thought it was three years.

Every year, in the Spring, when birds are laying eggs in nests, our district is laying "pink slips" in the boxes of untenured teachers. It's an unnerving process.

So, here comes the gratitude.

After the first year of working at a Program Improvement school, I was brought into a "secret meeting" with my area administrator and my principal. Mind you, I had a CLAD and clear credential. At this meeting, I was told if I continued to work at this school site I would have tenure the first day I taught at the PI school my third year. So, after three years, I was tenured...safe. Phew!

Hm. I wonder why? Well, apparently the only "perk" of staying at a PI school in our district is that sometimes, and I want to stress sometimes, if a teacher can hold up under the stress and pressure of PI requirements, build positive relationships with staff members, get good evaluations, submit to any demands asked of them, and remain in the good graces of the administrator, an early tenure might...might...be offered.

Here's the trouble.

Now, I do not claim to be an expert on the hiring and "tenuring" processes of other districts, but in our district, campuses are required to "let go" two untenured teachers a year. My understanding is that those teachers are not ever allowed to be hired in our district again, and the principal is not required to give any explanation as to why the teacher was not "adequate enough" to be retained.

So, let's do some deducing. If Non-Program Improvement schools have higher teacher retention rates, as a whole, they probably also have more veteran tenured teachers. Therefore, they have less teachers who are "let go". This leaves PI schools with the bulk of positions in the districts to be filled, year after year, and therefore, these are the campuses with the least experienced teachers, which can affect student learning.

My qualitative research data has established how stressful, anxiety producing, and restrictive working at a PI site can be, especially under the leadership of a militaristic controlling principal.

Do any teachers out there remember their first year of teaching? How did you feel? Please post if it was the most relaxing, easiest, dreamy time in your life.

I was stressed out...all the time. I remember if I went to my teacher's box and saw a piece of paper a feeling of dread would come over me, each piece of paper seemed that it could be "the thing that could break the teacher's back." There were so many feelings of doubt and inadequacy. I knew I had so much to learn...and learn I did.

Lucky for me, I was assigned a peer mentor ( one thing I can definitely give my administrator credit for), who helped me with classroom and behavior management, organization, and engagement strategies. She actually CAME INTO MY CLASS (ideal) while I was teaching, and when I would give her a signal, she would casually move in and take over, so I could see a model. She saved me my first year and made PI requirements bearable. Giving up my "credential class ideals" and submitting myself to the stagnating horrors which come with commercial mandated base programs also helped to relieve stress. Plus, I tried to have positive outlook ( believe it or not). All of this got me tenure in three years.

Now, I think of other new teachers, perhaps, more timid than me, less able to ask for help, less of a worker-bee (translation:work-a-holic), but still good teachers. What if, instead of being dropped into the "lion's den" to be torn up and spit out by conditions at PI schools, districts everywhere allowed new teachers a few years to "ease in to the teaching profession" and become inspired as professionals at less stressful Non-PI school sites?

Surely, there would still be teachers who would leave Non-PI schools, statistics tell us they always do, and always will. But, if teachers could get over the first two years of teaching and then get transferred to a PI school ( after a LOT of issue-relevant professional development), they would have more confidence, experience, and could more readily contribute to the education of the students at PI school sites.

Please don't make me think in a sinister manner. Please do not tell me that a policy, as mentioned above, would make it more difficult for districts to "rid themselves" of teachers, and therefore would never be enacted. That would just be too sad.

Dismissal Versus Professional Development for Teachers at Program Improvement Schools

Good morning friends and guests!

Nothing is more effective than a brisk early morning run than an adrenalin-rousing, fire-in-the-belly promoting email from the NEA, such as this:

D.C. schools chancellor imposes plan for dismissing ineffective teachers.
The Washington Post (10/3, B1, Turque) reports on the front page of its Metro section, "D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee made good yesterday on repeated threats to bypass labor contract negotiations by imposing her own program to fire ineffective teachers, including a measure that gives poor-performing instructors 90 days to improve or face dismissal." The move follows the city and its teachers reaching an impasse on a previous pay-for-performance plan. The "Plan B" program "includes a new teacher evaluation system based primarily on student test scores and other achievement benchmarks." In addition, Rhee will "employ rules that are on the books but seldom used, including one that allows her to" overlook seniority in determining "which teachers would lose jobs in the event of declining enrollment or school closures." Meanwhile, "Washington Teachers' Union President George Parker denounced Rhee's decision." According to Parker, Rhee should focus on supporting and professionally developing teachers, rather than terminate them.
The AP (10/3) and WJLA-TV Arlington (10/3) also report the story.
Editorials tout merits of two-tier pay plan. In an editorial titled "D.C. Teachers Left Behind," the Washington Post (10/3, A22) argues that "D.C. teachers ought to be asking whose interests their union leaders are tending to at the bargaining table." The Post notes that Rhee not only "hoped to make the union a partner in her efforts," but was also "offering teachers a choice" with her previous, two-tier plan: "No one would be forced to give up tenure, and those opting for the lower pay level would still get...a 28 percent salary boost over five years, plus $10,000 in bonuses." However, since the plan was not approved, "the $200 million Ms. Rhee has raised from private foundations willing to pay for the first five years of her plan" is uncertain. As "Rhee's offer is still on the table," the Post concludes that "teachers who have confidence in their students and in themselves" need "to find their voice and speak out."
The New York Times (10/3, A24) is also running an editorial that is largely in favor of Rhee's plan. According to the Times, "The higher salaries and bonuses would make the city a magnet for teacher talent, and the new rules would make it easier to dismiss teachers who were not meeting the requirements of the job." Although "Rhee's proposal represents a dramatic break with the past," the Times argues that, "with student achievement lagging, and Washington's school system still seen as one of the worst big-city systems in the country, a dramatic break may be exactly what it needs."

***********************************************************************************

You know I could not just read that and go back to Saturday cleaning. Instead, I sat down and wrote our local teachers' union representative ( for those anti-union folks reading this--- just become a teacher in the current politically charged insane environment that is education at this moment in time---you'll convert to pro-union mentality in no time).

Good morning [ Union President's Name],
I just thought you would be interested in this article ( though I am sure you have already seen it).
Scary. Scary. Scary. I especially worry for new naive inexperienced teachers who are thrown into inner city and Program Improvement schools and have no idea what the expectations are despite their years of pre-entry training ( believe me, I have been there). These types of measures will be critically unfair to teachers who work at PI schools...it's a bit discriminatory.
Stupidity often begins in D.C. and is refined in California, so I worry about these things. Just look at the current financial mess!
I am doing my Masters project on retaining teachers at PI schools. Teachers I interviewed have all said the same thing about the exceptional stresses and pressures which exist on these campuses ( poor administration creates even more difficulties). They all say, especially those who have moved on to Non-PI schools, that teachers outside the "PI grind" have no idea what it is like to work at one of these exceptional sites.
My question is: At the end of the day, when teachers have been "dismissed" for being "ineffective" because they are unable to raise test scores because of the many current flawed educational demands on children( and therefore their teachers), and additionally commercial curriculum and subject matter which lack motivational elements children need to have more success, and administration which negates the realities of many of the statistical limitations which exist when expecting test scores to rise ( especially among students who are English language learners, from low socio-economic backgrounds, and from underprivileged ethnic minority groups), who is going to teach the children at these at-risk schools? Who will want to risk the the financial investment and time in a teacher credential and their career to work at these schools?
It is these children who will suffer.
Who are these administrators? They are OUT OF TOUCH with R-E-A-L-I-T-Y!
Sincerely,
Lovable Me
*********************************************************************************
And now let's go to the court of public opinion regarding this matter (refer to the NEA email above). The New York Times is running an editorial that is largely in favor of Rhee's plan, eh? Hm.

Let me just guess that the reporter/writer has not worked at an inner city or Program Improvement school.

It's just a guess.

They said, "The higher salaries and bonuses would make the city a magnet for teacher talent..." True. New teachers would be drawn by mercenary minded ideals. And how would this benefit their teaching or their students? In my research survey, teachers at PI schools said they DID NOT stay at PI schools because they were paid more money to work there.

Sure, these new teachers will get their cash, but without proper training, specifically for issues they would deal with at a PI school, they will probably not even have to be "dismissed". As statistics have revealed many of these new teachers will take their money, along with their high anxiety levels, and disillusionment and run, as soon as they get a chance!

The Times writer also concluded, "...and the new rules would make it easier to dismiss teachers who were not meeting the requirements of the job." Hm.

And what are those requirements exactly? From my experience at a PI school, I can say the requirements and "rules of the teaching game" change with an irritating frequency. So, let Ms. Rhee beware. She should make a careful decade long detailed study of the differences between the teaching requirements at expectations at PI versus Non-PI campuses. My study reveals there are many. Perhaps in Administrationland, the land of unrealistic dreams and outcomes, there is a master list of requirements that will be fair for educators at ALL schools and for the students who they teach.

Thank goodness for reason! Thank goodness for people like Washington Teachers' Union President George Parker who denounced, Administrationland Hostess, Rhee's decision. Parker's admonition for Rhee to focus on supporting and professionally developing teachers, rather than terminating them, is what my research shows teachers who have worked at PI schools feel would be "absolutely" effective.

Getting Down to Business: The Research

Today, I will commence with the real reason I began this blog in the first place, and that is to lay out to the public what I have attempted to accomplish via my action research.

Though I rant and rave, I do like to problem solve as well. Believe it or not, I do look for the positive in situations.

For this reason, I decided to, in the words of Tony Robbins ( do I have to write Inc. after that?), ask myself an empowering question, in the midst of my Program Improvement school turmoil.

Instead of asking why teachers were leaving, I wondered why teachers were staying. Which factors played into their decision to stay in a working environment more intense than another teaching assignment, which might be easily available to them?

My research questions began to form:

What are some factors which influence teacher retention at low performing, high risk, Program Improvement schools?

What are the types of issue-relevant professional development modules which could support and influence teachers to stay at their positions at low performing high risk schools in PI status?

( More specifically, California elementary schools in Program Improvement)

To prepare for this project, I scoured a list of over 6,000 California schools ( I had a lot of spare time during the summer) and narrowed my search down to about 128 elementary schools which were in PI status. Through a long arduous process of searching district websites and calling schools, I began getting contact information for principals. I sent out an initial email to over 30 principals, certain I would get a positive response from...well...I was optimistic...at least half of them.

This did not transpire.

Only three principals responded in the affirmative. Yes, they would find a way to get their teaching staff my surveys, whether online or on paper. Hooray!

I collected more PI principal emails.

No response.

Finally, I began emailing colleagues who I had previously served with at a PI school site ( the bond which remains is strong---working at a PI school can be like being in battle together---you never forget your hardworking sacrificing comrades in arms).

I also contacted two local principals at PI schools. One was VERY helpful. The other shut me down ( I have vented in a previous blog).

I set up a Survey Monkey account and teachers responded to my two surveys online and through paper surveys, which they or their principals mailed back to me ( no names were on the surveys).

In addition, I conducted six interviews with teachers, who were either currently at a PI school, or had taught at one in the past three years.

This is where I obtained my data.

To date, 62 teachers from around California have answered my first survey which had them rate whether they agreed or disagreed the factors in the survey influenced their decision to stay at a PI school.

Fifty six teachers from the Golden State have responded to my second survey which rates the effectiveness of certain professional development topics to influence their decision to stay at a PI school.

My six interviews have been transcribed and show a pattern in descriptions of working at a PI school campus in comparison with descriptions of working at a Non-PI school and the TREMENDOUS influence administrators have on whether teachers stay or leave their assignments at these at-risk campuses.

As the weeks progress, and my action research project progresses towards completion, I will be posting more detailed results of the survey percentages and portions of the interview transcripts.

It is my hope these will have an influence on educators and administrators within the context of California's most needy schools, and professors at institutions of higher learning who train them, to better prepare future teachers, and current teachers, for the realities of undertaking responsibilities on these exceptional campuses, so all children are able to receive a quality equitable education, and we can make more tangible strides towards closing the existing persistent achievement gap.

The New Segregation in Education

In 1954 the United States Supreme Court made a significant decision in the Oliver L. Brown et.al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS) et.al. case, which dismantled the legal basis for racial segregation in schools and other public facilities. The Supreme Court declared racial segregation violated the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws. Brown v. Board of Education shaped future national and international policies regarding human rights. This decision inspired human rights struggles across the country and around the world.
(http://brownvboard.org/summary/)

Do you have any idea where I am going with this?

What does this have to do with retaining teachers at Program Improvement schools?

Let me tell you a story. Years ago, I began my work at a little PI school in the country. This same year, little did I know, there was a teacher who had just started her work there the year before. At the end of my second year, because the teacher did not yet have tenure in our district, our principal called her into the office and simply "let her go."

For those of you who do not know what this might mean for a teaching professional, in our district, it meant this teacher, who had never been forewarned this decision might occur, was unemployed. The district would never hire her again.

She had worked, perhaps not perfectly, she was, after all, relatively new to the teaching field, under the immense pressures, stress, unrealistic expectations, and scrutiny which exist at a PI school for THREE years, and without even an explanation ( because when you are not tenured the principal does not have to give you one), she was essentially fired.

I have often wondered where she went. Certainly, being "let go" from a district cannot look good on a resume. In addition, I have also wondered if this teacher would still be working in our district had she NOT been working at a PI school.

There is a certain "type" of educator who can fit in at a PI school. Type A's do extremely well, but I have seen them leave, especially when the administrator is as controlling as they are. Brown-nosers do well too ( perhaps, this is how I made it as long as I did). I just did what I was told. All the little teeny tiny things that MUST be done: turning in weekly minutely formatted lesson plans, creating AND keeping pace with an often unrealistic curriculum map ( pacing calendar) in order to be through the curriculum before "the test", teaching strictly from commercially created base program materials ( rarely straying for a glimpse into more engaging, creative, real-world, joyful lessons outside reading, writing, and math), attending meeting after, long excruciating, minute-by-minute-dictated, meeting ( keeping notes on everything which occurred for records---all part of the "monitoring" and "accountability" measures for our school site), putting a smile on my face and saying, " Okay, I'll do that." All the while, thinking, "How will I ever be able to do all that?", tolerating score manipulations by my principal ( so she could make the point that the test for my FIRST GRADERS was not calibrated to the STAR---oh my goodness) [ the scores were moved DOWN not UP], posting standards, schedules, and creating elaborate focus walls, testing, testing, testing to assess learning to "drive instruction" ( even though, to keep up with the pacing calendar, I rarely had time to go back and reteach what the children had failed to grasp), and on it went....

Teachers who are independent minded, creative, and know their craft...do not fair well at a PI school. I rediscovered the independent minded, creative, side of myself during my third year of teaching...and this is when I interviewed for another job in our district for a position at a Non-PI school.

This leads me to the main topic of this particular piece of writing ( you were wondering when I would get there). There is a new segregation in education. Teachers at PI schools are quite aware of the inequities they bear at their school sites. As they speak to their educator-friends at Non-PI schools, they are intelligent enough to ascertain the differences in expectations from administrators and bureaucratic entities. Teachers at Non-PI schools have more freedom and are allowed to be more creative. They are allowed to be professional educators who practice their craft.

Teachers at Non-PI schools, who have never worked at a PI school, often fancy themselves as miracle workers. As they see their high scores, they attribute it largely to themselves, rarely taking a look at the real reasons their students are able to meet the high assessment expectations.

What I heard over and over again in my interviews with educators, was that teachers at Non-PI schools have larger parameters to make their own decisions. They also talked about principals at Non-PI schools, who value their teaching staffs' opinions as professionals, and allowed them to decide what was best for their students. Interviewees spoke of overhearing conversations from teachers at Non-PI schools, panicked because they had two-whole English Language Learners (ELL) in their classes, when the teacher being interviewed had had more than 90% of their students who were ELL, when they had previously worked at a PI school.

One teacher talked about their experience. At a PI school, they had been deemed as less effective because their students continually scored Basic on assessments. When they left their assignment at a PI school and transferred to a Non-PI school, their students' scores skyrocketed, and they were suddenly effective!

Yes! There is a new segregation in education. It is a Have and Have-Not situation among teachers. At Non-Program Improvement schools, teachers are the Haves. They have more freedom, less restrictions, more use of their professional integrity, less bureaucratic scrutiny and administrative controls upon them( there is a formula in education today: high test scores=less administrative and bureaucratic control of teachers), more students whose primary language is English from white collar/middle class homes, and more parental support.

And then there are the Have-Nots. At Program Improvements schools, teachers "Have-not" a less stressful working environment or a larger degree of professional freedom. They "have not" a student population whose first language is the language of instruction, nor do their students come equipped with much of the foundational cultural background knowledge necessary for a wider degree of success in school.

These factors make a huge difference in the way a teacher teaches and a student becomes educated. These factors also make a difference in whether or not a teacher stays at a PI school and sometimes whether a teacher "makes it" in their profession. Because, statistics show students who are ELL, from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and/or are from ethnic minority groups, do not do as well on state tests, and state tests are EVERYTHING in the world of education today. And if a school has a large majority of the above mentioned subgroups, their scores will be lower, they will not make their API and/or AYP, and then the "sanctions" begin, and then intensify, until all joy and laughter disperses from a campus, as it slowly descends into the world of "PI-status", never to be the same.

If the teacher, who I spoke of at the beginning of this blog, had started her work with our district at a Non-PI school, and had been granted the luxurious environment which exists therein, I am quite certain her fate would have been different. So, in the end, this was not an equitable situation for her as a professional. She was judged according to a MUCH higher standard than a new teacher would have been at a Non-PI school.

As I have said before, there are two kinds of teachers who know what it is like to work at a Program Improvement school: those who are still there and those who have left.

My opinion is that there must be a new equality in the world of teaching. There must be a balance in the expectations teachers at PI schools are required to achieve. Who would want to keep their positions at these sites, when there is a world of greater professional freedom and less anxiety at an inter-district Non-PI school five miles away?

PI Principals as BARRIERS to Positive Change for Staff and Students!

Okay, now I am angry.

As the Incredible Hulk used to say, " You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

This summer I went through a list of 6,065 California high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools to find schools which had been in Program Improvement for five consecutive years.

By the time I had finished this vast perusal, I had narrowed the list down to approximately 128 elementary schools in districts across the state.

I assumed...ASSUMED... that administrators would be eager to find out why teachers STAY at Program Improvements schools, since this would save their districts money, save them from having to hire, retrain, and reprogram new teachers, year after year, and since a smaller teacher turnover would provide their student populations with more stable experienced teaching staffs.

But, you know what they say about assuming ( but there will be no explicit language on this blog).

It was more difficult to acquire the school emails of the principals at the PI schools than I had thought it would be, so for sanity's sake, I sent an initial mass email to about 30 schools on my list. Out of those, only about eight principals bothered emailing me at all, and only three said they would ask their staff to take my survey ( which I made even easier to access by creating an online survey through Survey Monkey).

I then sent out an additional mass email to approximately ten schools. There was not ONE principal who said they would even ask their staff to take the survey. This was disturbing.

But even more disturbing than this dismal response to my survey, has been the qualitative data I have received while conducting interviews with teachers who have taught, or are teaching, at PI schools. A majority of the interviewees cited militant restrictive type administrators as a reason for the additional stresses at PI schools. (NOTE: These teachers also cited supportive realistically-minded principals as a reason teachers would stay at a PI school.)

This has led me to believe principals play a KEY role in either keeping or driving teachers away from PI schools. This has changed my focus for my project quite a bit.

What this action research project has shown me is that principals can either positively buffer their staff from the major pressures of bureaucratic and district pressures, or they can further add to those pressures through power-play tactics and also act as negative barriers for positive change, if THEY are the ones to solely decide what is best for their staff.

Since I am angry, and I have technology as an emotional outlet, I have decided to post an email I received JUST today. To protect the innocent, and the not so innocent, I have removed all names and school sites from the email.

Please take note that out of over 60 teachers and, now 4 principals, this principal is the only person who has made any comments about the content of the survey. That he, alone, decided what the "folks" at his school site would find beneficial speaks to the type of control principals have when it comes to what type of information enters the conscious domains of their teaching staff.

PRINCIPAL'S RESPONSE TO MY EMAIL ( WHICH I HAD ATTACHED A COPY OF THE SURVEY TO):

Hello again,

I have taken a look at the survey and while it doesn't look to be too time consuming, I am a bit uncomfortable with some of the questions. The teachers here at our site, are very committed to their profession and our students, but some of the questions might seem to suggest otherwise.

So, at this time, I think the folks at [ School Name] need to pass.

Sorry for the inconvenience,
Control-Freak Barrier-Building Principal ( Okay, that's me...I said that)

HERE WAS MY RESPONSE TO HIM:

Good afternoon,
Since this is a research project, I am very interested in your conclusion regarding some of the questions on the survey. You are the first PI administrator to make such an observation. If you have a moment, I would be interested in which questions you felt called into question the level of commitment your teachers have to students, since the research is being conducted in order to retain teachers at Program Improvement schools through supportive professional development. I worked at a Program Improvement school for several years and found my colleagues to be the most dedicated professionals.
Thank you for your time.
Most Sincerely,
ME

So...I am beginning to wonder what other sorts of information principals filter and monitor on behalf of their staff. What was this man afraid of?

When I was at a PI school ( the last year), a state appointed School Assistance Intervention Team ( SAIT) was assigned to our school site. I called the California Department of Education to see who these people were, who would be coming on site to judge how well I was doing my job and telling me what more I could do in my already busy days (without knowing me or my students). The bureaucrat in Sacramento assured me that the staff at our school was supposed to meet the team. I believed her.

Oh, they did come on site. And it was even believed by staff members that we were going to be able to meet and speak to them. This, however, never occurred. Though, I did see our principal escorting them to a far off classroom surrounded by her "cohort of sympathizers", a group of support personnel who she had apparently deemed to speak on our behalf.

This is just the type of principal-power-play that infuriates teachers at PI schools!

To the staff at the PI school with the principal who stands as a sentinel to censor and block you from information and ideas which could make you think in broader more enlightened ways, may your lunch hour seem long and your staff meetings short.

To the principal of that staff, undo your top button and have some chamomile tea!

The Blind Leading the Sighted

Many of my friends are teachers. And an even larger majority of them are those who have worked in a Program Improvement school.

They are some of the best people I know.

They have been through the refiner's fire of PI schools with gritted teeth and sweat on their brow as they have pushed through the mandated commercial curriculums, raced to keep up with unrealistic pacing calendars designed to "help" them get ALL the standards taught before the state test, dared students to achieve far beyond their capabilities ( and with NCLB mandates forcing out Art, Music, PE, Science and Social Studies...far beyond their motivation levels), posted standards on walls, which students didn't give a second glance at ( even when the teacher read them), and gave assessments until they were blue in the face.

Who knows their struggles? Only those who have taught at a PI school and stayed, and those who have taught at a PI school...and left.

Principals think they can empathize. After all, they are on campus every day, walking through classes, evaluating lessons, scanning and collecting lesson plans, putting together teacher inservices, going to meetings to learn of all those things they must tell their teachers to do, and then writing out the lists and giving the lectures so their teachers will do them, etc.

But do they really understand?

No.

A teacher friend shared this story. Her sister is a teacher at a Program Improvement school. As she had to leave campus for a morning appointment. She prepared for a substitute, leaving standards based and fidelity-to-the-base-program lesson plans and classwork. She even tried to make the volume of the work and depth of the lessons which needed to be covered easier, so as to not overwhelm the "guest teacher."

Well, the substitute never showed up. The principal had to take over the class.

When my friend's sister returned to the campus, she found the principal hovering over the desk with a look of deep concern on his face. These were his words, " I never knew. I ask my teachers to do this everyday, and I never knew."

Enough said.

Shh! We're Sort of Trying to Close the Achievement Gap

Remember the darling Warner Bros. cartoon character, Elmer Fudd?
How he would tippy-toe about in the forest with his useless
rifle, until he would at last slowly turn to the camera and say in a "lispy"
whisper, "Shh. I'm hunting wabbit."

Somehow, I have come to see post-NCLB bureaucrats in this same light,
tippy-toeing about holding to their ridiculous educational mandates whispering,
"Shh. We don't want anyone to know children ( ELL, Low-socioeconomic, and Ethnic Minorities) at low performing schools (Title 1 and PI schools) have the right (there are provisions, and there is supposed to be funding), to allow them to transfer, within their district to more
successful schools."

Richard D. Kahlenberg calls this socioeconomic integration and feels this would be an effective way to close the achievement gap across racial and income groups, since research has shown students will perform better in a higher performing (middle class) school than in a high-poverty (PI-type) school.

What? Research said so? And the government is not acting on this research the way it did on the type of "research" which was used to create the developmentally inappropriate curriculum since NCLB first reared its well-intentioned, but terribly flawed, ugly head? Is this the same bureaucratically-challenged government which was an accomplice in creating such stressful restrictive environments at PI schools, that teachers flee them at statistically significant rates because of the accountability measures of NCLB, which were created to CLOSE the achievement gap? Are these the same people who are now hush-hush about the benefits of socioeconomically integrating public schools ?

I know they are hush-hush because a recent report illustrated the fact that less than one percent of students, who are eligible for these transfers under Title 1, have even taken advantage of this opportunity. Now, I know what teachers at Title 1 schools are saying, " But, each year, a flyer is sent home informing parents of their "right" to transfer to a non-Title 1 school site. So, isn't that enough?"

The dismal response to the offer tells me NO it is NOT enough. Enough would be a MUCH larger percentage...even 20% would be better, but not enough. If research shows "socioeconomic integration" works, why aren't administrators and bureaucrats (you know, the people who tell teachers how much they really care about children---especially marginalized populations of children) really PUSHING parents to transfer their students? This would level the playing field, not only for the students, but for the teachers as well, since it is a commonly known fact that teachers at Title 1, PI schools have greater stresses and work loads.

Shh. A teacher told me something bureaucrats and administrators do not want the public to now. (teachers know a great deal about what goes on at school sites). This educator told me when a school is labeled as Title 1 or Program Improvement, there are definitely those who transfer out. But who are they?

In the world of education, it is equivalent to what real estate agents call "white flight". Families, not necessarily Caucasian, but definitely of higher socioeconomic statuses, are the ones who take flight. They put in for the transfers to higher performing schools. And so, schools which used to have a greater balance of ethnic and socioeconomic student populations have seen a new imbalance in the levels of their poor, English language learners, and ethnic minorities, as the parents of more middle class "majority" children take their children out of PI schools and get them placed in higher performing educational situations.

This lets me know there are parents who are aware of the destructive nature of Program Improvement schools.

To really shake things up, to really make an effort to let every parent at Title 1, Program Improvement schools aware of the researched-based benefits, it would take a lot of real work at the "higher levels"of the educational system, more than just a whisper about the beneficial programs available to students. The problem is classroom educators know that outside the classroom in the far away district and government offices, what occurs is mostly talk. Teachers and students accomplish the real work and change in education.

Retaining Teachers at California's Program Improvements Schools Through Issue-Relevant Professional Development

Who Cares?
Who cares if teachers are leaving California's program improvement (PI) schools at a significantly higher rate than teachers leave "non"program improvement schools?
Who cares if teachers are creating instability in schools where a majority of the students are from low income families, have a primary language other than English, and/or are from an ethnic minority group?
Who cares if research shows that one ineffective unengaging teacher can cause a ripple effect of academic chaos in a child's life for years to come?

I CARE!

We should all care!

There is an annual migration in California which has nothing to do with the darling swallows of Capistrano. It has to do with teachers. Teachers who migrate away from PI schools, where NCLB accountability can put a stranglehold on educators and place relentless demands on them in rather exceptional circumstances.

At the end of each year, when as many as a quarter of teachers leave PI schools sites and a fresh batch of teachers are hired for the following year, needing to be retrained, rewired, and reestablished, who suffers? Teachers can, after all, find new jobs.

The students suffer. This must stop.