Race To The Top: A Teacher Suggests Some Radical Ways to Get There

by Joanne Yatvin, Ph.D. Photo by Anita Wynn

Since just two states won the first round of the 'Race to the Top "competition, governors and chief school officers in 46 states are rather unhappy. They won't be getting any of the $600 million being doled out this year.

Just to submit an application, states had to change a lot-- pass new laws that allow unlimited expansion of unproven charter schools and factor student test scores into teacher evaluations. Then, they had to write reform plans for developing common standards and high quality assessments, increasing high school graduation rates, moving strong teachers into low-performing schools and turning around those schools. Although persuading legislatures to change laws and school districts to buy into reform plans was difficult, it was a cakewalk compared to living with the consequences of this ill-planned reform.

THIS IS WHAT REFORM LOOKS LIKE
How many regular public schools will be destabilized by having new charter schools springing up around the corner? How many struggling students will high schools encourage to "transfer" to destinations unknown? How will local school boards respond to parents' anger when well-liked teachers are terminated? And what will they say when replacement teachers can't produce any higher scores than their predecessors? All these fences will be hard to mend even if a state eventually wins an RTTT grant.

CENTRALIZING FAILURES

Before entering the second round of the RTTT competition, states might do well to think again.

It's pretty obvious from the failures of No Child Left Behind that, despite threats, humiliation, and punishments, federal bureaucrats can't control the operations of one hundred thousand schools, the practices of three-and-a-half million teachers or the behavior of fifty million students. Perhaps there are better ways to improve schools than adopting the hard-line tactics dreamed up in Washington.

TRICKLE UP REFORM

From many ideas proposed, let me point out just a few that appeal to me because they approach school reform from the bottom up, using teachers' knowledge and experience, community and parent support, and children's ability and desire to learn. And, like icing on the cake, they help schools to manage with the money they already have, rather than compete for the pot of gold the Department of Education is dangling above their heads.

Reduce the number of standardized tests and the time devoted to test preparation.

Standardized tests from commercial publishers are a big yearly expense for schools. Why not give them just once every two years? Yearly student progress can be determined by teacher-devised tests aligned with the school's curriculum.

Organize school staffs into teams whose members have varied expertise and responsibilities, reflected in different salary scales.

Each team would have a leader, curriculum developer(s) mentor teachers, journeyman teachers and beginners. School principals would assign roles and monitor and evaluate performance yearly.

Offer early retirement to burned-out older teachers and opportunities for ineffective younger teachers to resign with monetary incentives.

Both practices would be cheaper than keeping such teachers on at regular salaries or battling them in court.

Reduce costs of instructional materials by eliminating workbooks and buying only enough textbooks for shared classroom use.

Instead of high-priced and short-lived commercial materials, use more library-type fiction and non-fiction books, teacher-created materials, and free materials from reliable Internet sources.

Institute a four-day school week with a longer school day and physical education as the only non-academic class.On day five, teachers would work to plan instruction, engage in professional development, assess student work and keep records. Students could also attend on a voluntary basis for recreation, art and music classes, etc, managed by one or more certified professionals, assisted by aides and parent volunteers. Schools would realize savings on unneeded substitute teachers, student busing, and utilities.

Lure effective teachers and principals into low-performing schools by offering incentives.

Instead of forcing redistribution of good teachers, school districts would invite outstanding teachers and principals to transfer to troubled schools and take charge of turning them around. In return, they would have higher salaries, smaller classes, additional planning/meeting time, and opportunities to train teachers at other schools.

Convert high-poverty schools into community centers, open evenings and year round.

School-community centers would provide learning opportunities and social services to children and adults, such as vocational, self-improvement, and English classes; recreation; access to libraries, computer labs and health and dental clinics; and subsidized meals. Existing community services could move some or all operations to schools at lower rents than for private facilities.

The last two recommendations are the most important: turning over high-poverty schools to gifted educators, and combining schools with community services is the most promising strategy for boosting the learning of disadvantaged students whose test scores are consistently below those of students in wealthier neighborhoods. While charter schools and No Child Left Behind have shown little success in advancing such students or in closing the achievement gap between whites and minorities, letting educators, families, and community service providers take over the job may be the solution we've been searching for.

With a well-rounded expertise in education, Joanne Yatvin is a retired teacher, principal and superintendant who is currently an adjunct professor at Portland State University. She has also written three books and numerous articles for teachers and served as president of the National Council of Teachers of English.

photo: http://www.flickr.com/people/phaesia/