A Challenge For Tom Moran:

It's about time (4.00 / 1)

That the reformers started proving their case, that the reforms will actually improve education the way they say it will.  The reformers also need to address the vast amount of data and research (tools required by law to be used in student educational decisions by educators) and reconcile their findings with the prevailing wisdom.  I highly doubt your challenge will be answered, much like how B4K aka Derrell Bradford doesn't answer it.  

There is no political party to represent me now.

---

by: HurtPillow @ Sun Sep 11, 2011 at 17:26:48 PM UTC

We'll see... (4.00 / 1)

I think Moran, like most folks, seriously wants to make education better. I just don't think he's gone out of his way to hear the other side.

Part of that is our fault: we haven't made the case concisely and clearly.

Well, we have now. Let the debate begin.

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

---

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Sun Sep 11, 2011 at 17:30:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We have to separate out (4.00 / 1)

people who are intrigued by what so-called 'education reformers' promise (and the emotionally-driven way they present their way as an imperative) from the 'ed reformers' themselves, some of whom are opportunists and financial speculators eager for a crack at money to be made, and who very often have no grounding whatsoever in education itself.

I also think Tom Moran has no interest but the best for the state he lives in. But I agree with Jazzman that there are questions he hasn't considered, and digging he'd be right to do. The stakes are New Jersey kids, and so they're high as hell.

I hope he answers. He'd be welcome to.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Sun Sep 11, 2011 at 19:00:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Moran's intent (4.00 / 1)

I didn't read Moran's column with the idea that he was endorsing any specific reform measures. He feels that some changes are necessary, as do most others including Democrats. I think his point was that the prospect for any beneficial changes are greatly limited with the politically poisonous atmosphere we have in Trenton, and that the only people who will benefit from this stalement are those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

There is a real danger here for Democrats, who are making a huge mistake by letting themselves become perceived as the Party of "No" in Trenton the same way Republicans are perceived as the Party of "No" in Washington. There is a huge constituency, even within the Democratic Party, for some version of "reform", even if it doesn't pass muster with the NJEA. When you have a Democratic President (who's also an African-American), a Democratic Mayor of NJs largest city (also an African-American), and the most prominent African-American religious leader in the State (Reginald Jackson) calling for some version of education "reform" then it's time to pay attention and show some flexibility. I think this is what Tom Moran is calling for. He understands that if a tree doesn't bend, it breaks. The same is true in politics. And if anyone underestimates the political clout Reginald Jackson and other black ministers who support reforms have, just ask Jim Florio and James Carville.

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

---

by: ken bank @ Sun Sep 11, 2011 at 22:42:15 PM UTC

Ken: (0.00 / 0)

You are talking politics, and that's fine. But I am talking policy.

Look at Moran's quote above. He is clearly advocating a policy prescription: tenure "reform," charters, vouchers, merit pay.

Your argument here is: "Prominent Democrats are for these things, Republicans are for these things, the NJEA is against these things... therefore, they must be good!" It's the same argument I perceive from Moran.

But it really doesn't matter that Obama and Christie and Jackson and Booker agree on this agenda if the research shows it won't work. That is the critical component of all of this that too few want to acknowledge. And it is far more important than whether the NJEA is for or against it.

Merit pay has not worked and will not work: high quality research tells us this.

Vouchers have not worked and will not work: high quality research tells us this.

Charter schools are not replicable and do not present a viable solution for the achievement gap: high quality research tells us this.

Tenure is necessary and the small problems with its current configuration can be easily solved: high quality research tells us this.

This is the debate. This is what matters - not the politics. The politics are the concern of pundits and lobbyists and politicians.

The policy is the concern of the educators and the parents and the kids. If we really, truly care about the children, let's focus on whether or not this agenda will actually work.

I am here to tell you - it will not.


http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

---

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Sun Sep 11, 2011 at 23:00:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Saying No (4.00 / 1)

Yeah, I see how much the Repuicans have been hurt by saying no.

And I'm sick to death of Reginald Jackson.  If he wants to try to dictate right-wing policy to the Democratic party, let him become a Republican.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 18:45:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I had the same impulse (0.00 / 0)

as you, which was that Moran has already determined that the reforms that are needed are the ones Christie has deemed necessary.  It annoyed  especially since I turned the page and read a very well thought out editorial  (http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/09/911_anniversary_a_chance_for_r.html)
that detailed many of our problems in this country.

Poverty is the issue that ails our failing schools, I don't understand (well, actually I think I do) why this HUGE issue is never discussed as it relates to "education reform"

"Only a fool would follow a bully"

---

by: brendanod @ Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 11:44:54 AM UTC

Show us the research... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.brookings.edu/paper...

Opinion: http://select.nytimes.com/2007...

---

by: Got Kids @ Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 13:44:21 PM UTC

Good Teaching Matters... (0.00 / 0)

www.cftl.org/documents/K16.pdf

---

by: Got Kids @ Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 14:08:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course it does. (0.00 / 0)

No one disagrees. But the Sanders paper cited here is based on extrapolations, not actual policy outcomes.

See here:

http://www.bluejersey.com/diar...

"Three good teachers" is a myth; it has never been proven in practice.

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

---

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 00:16:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm well aware of this paper. (0.00 / 0)

And I refer you to this post by Prof Bruce Baker:

http://schoolfinance101.wordpr...

The upshot is this: Brookings never fully acknowledges the vast amount of statistical noise found in using test scores to evaluate teachers. They never acknowledge that teacher ratings change greatly when using different statistical models. They never acknowledge the tests themselves are often poorly constricted and graded.

That's why NERC has rejected Brookings' argument; a 35% error rate is just way too much.  

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

---

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 00:11:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can you hear me now? (0.00 / 0)

Can we agree that a lot of the empirical data is relatively new?  Especially when drilling down the teach level. And that for subjects where there are tests, tests have shown remarkable consistency among teachers? Over the years, they wrote, the difference in a child's learning progress between being assigned to a bottom-quartile teacher versus being assigned to a top-quartile teacher was "massive." That seems address the matter of "noise" in the studies.

I fully agree that we advocate for adequate funding and oversight to make sure the tests are accurate.

---

by: Got Kids @ Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 04:27:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, we can't agree: (0.00 / 0)

Tests are remarkably INCONSISTENT when used to evaluate teachers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The papers discussed above do not report how many teachers are actually top-rated for three, four, or five years. However, based on my colleague's discussions with a couple of the authors, it seems that only about 5-7 percent of teachers are rated in the "top" category for three consecutive years. It would be even fewer over four or five years (to ballpark it, using a 50 percent year-to-stability rate [as in this paper], only 1-2 percent of teachers will be in the top quartile for five consecutive years). Making things worse, many who are consistently top-ranked will be misclassified as such, due to random error.

Other literature shows that just change the statistical model drastically changes the teacher's rating. So, no, there is no agreement here, and even promoters of VAM acknowledge this. That's why the Brookings paper admits VAM is only good for extreme cases, and even then there is doubt.

As for the "massive" change from quartiles - again, this is never been proved. It is a theory, at best. No one has ever implemented it. And, given the errors in using tests to evaluate teachers, most likely no one ever will.

One last thing - if this is, as you say "relatively new," why are we in such a rush to implement it?

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

---

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 22:52:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As to Kristof's piece (0.00 / 0)

I would suggest Diane Ravitch's book, "The Death and Life of the Great American School System." She discusses the flaws in Kristof's piece in depth.

Again: "Three (or four or five) Great Teachers" is a myth.

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

---

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 01:21:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Still Reading.... (0.00 / 0)

As I'm reading Dr. Ravitch's book it occurs to me that, so far, she is addressing High School education where, admittedly, a lot of kids come with a lot of baggage. But how about 3,4,5th graders?  Are these kids so damaged so early? Not in our first suburbs they're not. Still reading...

---

by: Got Kids @ Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 04:47:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bought the book (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Got Kids @ Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 04:55:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Keep going (0.00 / 0)

In her remarkably fair chapter called "The Data Wars" she spells out how inconsistent the research is.

Again, why are we implementing something so quickly when, at the very best, the research is inconclusive?

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

---

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 22:54:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]