eduskeptic

Bill Gates has, by any standard, been a successful entrepreneur, businessman, and philanthropist. For a college dropout, he’s done rather well.

With the continuing dialog, and at times, bombast, regarding our educational system, there has been a great deal of attention focused on teachers. The main focus seems to be on evaluating teachers. From some quarters, the intent seems to be to get rid of as many senior teachers as possible, from others it is truly a dialog regarding how to put together a competent, helpful, and meaningful evaluation system.

Bill Gates entered the debate with $355 million (USD) through his foundation, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The intent of this is to overhaul the personnel departments of some big school districts, and the way they evaluate teachers.

Social scientists and, according to a newspaper report (Sacramento Bee, 1.04.10), thousands of teachers, are involved in developing a “better system for evaluating classroom instruction”.

There is a $4 billion grant “competition” from the federal government for the same purpose.  Some twenty sates have jumped into the competition pool. It’s a lot of money.

Mr. Gates and his foundation aren’t the first ones in the pool. A widely panned method, put forth by economists, is a statistical exercise that purports to measure how much teachers help their students learn. It is based in changes in standardized test scores, and the changes from one year to the next. It’s called the value added method.

Gates’ effort and research starts with value added. The aim, however, is to develop other, better, methods for measuring teacher effectiveness. A large part of the effort is to also help educators understand the reason one teacher is more successful in the classroom than another. The “help educators” part is a big part of how Gates may be offering something useful.

What is described by researchers and educators involved with the project as “maddeningly complex”, the effort looks at much more than simple, and largely discredited, standardized test scores.

Gates was surprised by the lack of study on what actually makes a good teacher, what he calls the exemplars: “What’s unbelievable is how little the exemplars have been studied.” For those of us who are in or who have retired from the educational system, it’s not a surprise at all. All too often, the high priced trainers who took up staff development time were either rookies with very little teaching history who abandoned the classroom to become corporate trainers to those who simply had never spent any time in a classroom teaching children. They were not credible at all, and we all knew it.

Gates, on the other hand, is using video to help figure out the puzzle. By June, 2011, his researchers should have about 24,000 video taped lessons. Eventually, the researchers will review over 64,000 hours of classroom instruction. They are looking for a correlations between teaching practices, high student achievement, and value-added scores.

Thomas Kane, a Harvard economist, is leading the research. His hope is that more districts will start using classroom videos for training and evaluations. The foundation is working to keep costs down. The start up costs can be significant: $1.5 million for a 140 school district with 7,000 teachers, with ongoing costs in the $800,000 range.

For the most part, districts already spend quite a few dollars evaluating teachers. If the Gates initiative is actually something that provides a quality method for evaluations, then the real costs will have to be quantified.

Did Gates get it right, again? He may have. At the very least, his research efforts are doing the apparently heretofore unthinkable: using actual exemplary teachers and teaching methods to not only evaluate effective teaching methods, but to help teachers reach a better understanding of what it takes to get to the exemplary level. It beats using a system that relies on standardized test scores as a sole method of evaluating effectiveness in the classroom. Standardized test simply aren’t capable of measuring all of the chaotic variables that walk into a classroom with each child, and coming up with anything meaningful. Gates system might be able to do it.

As always, assume nothing, verify everything. It’s less embarrassing that way.

A few weeks ago, the Sacramento Bee newspaper, the only major newspaper in the Sacramento, California, area, ran an article about school superintendent pay.

The article compared the pay of superintendents relative to the number of students in the district. If one were to read the article, and let it be at that, then one would be led to believe that the cost per student in terms of superintendent pay was the highest in a small, two school, rural district. The cost for a superintendent in a large, urban, district was said to be much smaller.

The article was well written. The conclusions were also absolutely wrong. It was a comparison that, on the surface looked legitimate, but it was an apples to alligators comparison. A little bit of research would have revealed that the superintendent of the small, rural district, had no assistants, just the normal office staff: bookkeepers, secretary, financial officer. A look at the large urban district revealed that the superintendent had many assistant superintendents (human resources, curriculum, IT, facilities, maintenance, community resources, and so on). There were 65 different assistants of one kind or another under the superintendent.

When one compares the actual cost of the district offices, the small district is a bargain on a per pupil basis. The large urban district is far more costly per pupil. It just depends on what one counts, and the reason for counting in the first place. Bias comes to mind.

The drop out rate of students across the US is said to be anywhere from 30 to 50 percent, or more. These figures have gained traction among the charter school and choice business people. The figures are not accurate and it doesn’t really take much work to find out that they aren’t. What is true is that school districts across the US don’t have a really good method of figuring out where their students go when they leave.

In an April 19 story, Ed Bott of ZDNet, wrote about the reported number of pc’s that are infected with malware. “Nearly half of personal computers in the U.S. are compromised by malware.” This statement can be found on the internet and in various newspapers and magazines. Bott calls this statement “…an outright fabrication. It is not true. It is not even remotely accurate, based on objective data.” The actual number of infected pc’s, those that have Windows auto update turned on, or who practice normal internet security is around 1%-2%. That’s a far cry from 50%.

Bott simply took the time to track down the information that turned into the 50% number. It turns out that it was a usurped from a statement from Panda ActiveScan regarding people who already thought their pc’s had some sort of malware on them.

The information was quickly misquoted and put out as a fact on the internet, where it picked up a life as a “Fact”.

Pre-school is good for all children, and will keep them out of jail, and in good jobs. It is easy to find this one out there too. The reality is that this was taken from a Rand Corp. study regarding pre-school and the effects it had on a very specific group of children. It was not, and is not, applicable to “all children”.

It doesn’t really take much to look a bit further when reading various claims about just about anything. In just a few minutes, most of the information that is written or quoted, can be verified, or shown to be absolute hog wash. The Internet can be a pretty good research tool when used by inquiring minds.

The constant mantra of the Eduskeptic is always “assume nothing, verify everything.” The education establishment, one would hope, would be leading the charge when it comes to verification of various theories. Assume nothing, verify everything.

Cathie Black has resigned as chancellor (superintendent) of New York City Schools. Actually, she was asked to step down. Black was appointed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg  to the position in November, 2010.

She had no experience as either an educator or education administrator, and no government experience either. Her appointment was an extremely puzzling event. Several long term members of the city’s educational administrative system resigned in protest of her appointment. Due to her complete lack of credentials for the job, it was necessary for the New York State Education Commission to grant her a waiver. David Steiner, who issued the controversial waiver to allow Black to take the job, has resigned his position with the Commission.

Black was, by all accounts, a complete flop. She lasted just about 96 days on the job. Apparently her supposed qualifications for the job were that she was good at business. She was successful in the publishing business. How this was supposed to translate into being able to head up a large and complicated inner city school system remains a mystery.

What should be obvious, but apparently isn’t, is that the educational system isn’t a business. While it seems that quite a few big business types believe that it is, the reality is that it isn’t.

Certainly, education has its business side. All of the buildings, buses, books, and budgets correctly should be looked after by someone with very good business skills and acumen. A very good chief financial officer is an absolute must, from the smallest to the largest districts in the US.

The actual running of these districts, strangely enough, should be done by people who have the experience in the field to understand how complex and wacky the system actually is. I say this lovingly, as someone who spent 36 years as a teacher. I know how strange it actually is.

There continue to be those who attempt, on the basis of a very brief encounter with education, to convince others that they know how to do it better. Keep in mind that within the profession, it takes about 5 years to get out of rookie status. There is a very high teacher drop out rate prior to that fifth year.

Their most common trajectory is this: teach for 2 or 3 years, bail out, start, or sign up with, a “non-profit educational” business, make lots of money, leave that to start another “non-profit” with the goal of re-inventing the entire system, or get a political appointment to a big city district prior to bailing on that to make a fortune with your own “non-profit”.

“Non-profit” is code for paying yourself and your buddies all of the money that would normally be in the profit category, thereby being able to say you run a “non-profit” entity.

It would be obviously absurd to appoint the Eduskeptic to run a hospital, transit system, airline, or any other large enterprise. A complete lack of credentials to do any of those would seem to eliminate the possibility of such a thing happening. Yet, somehow, when it comes to schools, logic disappears from the thinking of the politicians.

Once again it is necessary to say that the educational system has, does, and always will, need improvement. It remains necessary to say that it is not a business system, though it has a business side to it. It is an educational system.

While the so-called policy experts and reformers go about making outrageous claims and money, teachers continue to teach, and good administrators continue to oversee a complicated endeavor.

Michael Bloomberg, and any other mayor who has done what he did, should, rightfully, be embarrassed by his actions and the resulting insult to education.

As always, assume nothing, verify everything.

It is that bizarre time of year when school districts around the country either have or will be passing out pink slips to teachers. It is a fact of life in the teaching profession. This year seems to be especially difficult for teachers and  school districts due to the uncertain nature of funding for education.

On March 15 several thousand teachers in California alone were notified that their services would not be needed next year. Across the United States, that number is easily in the over 100,000+ range. It may grow as districts finalize their worst case projections as the school year winds down.

It is not just the newer teachers who are potentially facing the unemployment line. Districts have, and always have had, the ability to retain teachers according to the needs of the district, without regard to seniority, regardless of union contracts.

If one were to believe the so called reformers, it is only the newest teachers who are let go. A teacher with 10-15 years of experience is hardly new. Keep in mind that the call to do away with the seniority process is about finances, not education. Once again the Eduskeptic must point out that young doesn’t equal better, it only equals cheaper. This is not to say that older teachers should be exempt from the pink slip dance. More experienced doesn’t always equal better either.

The trauma caused by the yearly lay off notices is pretty heavy. In small districts, it is usually the principal who will call in those who will be laid off, and let them know to expect the notice. Generally this is in advance of the actual notice. In large districts, the notice generally arrives in the form of a registered letter. Either way, the blow to those who receive them is like being kicked in the stomach by a mule. Tears flow, anxiety flares, spirits plummet.

Each year when this happens an unknown number of good teachers just give up and move to other professions. Given that somewhere around 30% to 40% of new teachers quit within 3 years of entering the classroom anyway (Rhee and Vanderhoek, among the many), this amounts to a very serious drain of good, talented teachers we can ill afford to lose. Those who simply discover that the classroom isn’t a place they are willing to devote a career to are wise to run away. Those who give up after a series of pink slips represent a loss to the profession.

School districts cannot manufacture money. The national agenda, while making an entire catalog of sound bites about various reforms, has thus far failed to address adequate funding that would preclude the annual “your services are not needed next year” trauma.

One desperately hopes that the serious discussions are the ones we aren’t hearing about. This would be because those involved in the serious type of discussions aren’t looking to fund a corporation or make political points with any particular group. They would be looking to actually foster a more stable method of attracting and retaining good teachers.

To all of my colleagues who are dealing with the aftermath and trauma of receiving a pink slip I can only offer my sympathy and fervent hope that you will be recalled to the classroom. We need you.

As always, assume nothing, verify everything.

60 Minutes aired an interview with Zeke Vanderhoek on March 13. Vanderhoek is a former teacher who is now the founder and principal of a charter school in New York City.

The school is called The Equity Project or TEP. It is a charter school that opened in 2009. The school pays its teachers $125,000 per year, with the possibility of bonuses depending on how the student do. It isn’t clear if the teachers are offered benefits or contribute to the teachers pension fund.

The apparent idea of the $125,00o is to attract the most motivated teachers to apply. It is double the average salary of other teachers in New York City. There is no evidence, however, that paying teachers more money has any effect on their teaching.

The charter school doesn’t get more money than other schools. What it does get is the ability to spend the money differently. The classrooms are portables. There is no assistant principal (with less than 250 students, why would there be?), reading specialist or other staff that a regular school might have.

Vanderhoek claims a vigorous hiring process and the complete discretion to hire and fire at will. The standards, according to him, are high. The school is in the Washington Heights area, a predominately poor Hispanic and African American neighborhood.

Vanderhoek taught for three years  at Intermediate School 90 in Washington Heights through the Teach for America program. It is unclear if he earned tenure during his brief time teaching. During that time he created Manhattan GMAT. He did this in 2000. It is a test prep corporation. In January of 2007 he stepped down as the CEO in order to pursue the TEP charter.

Whether TEP survives or not is an open question. While Vanderhoek claims very vigorous standards for the teachers, and the school pays them well (shouldn’t all teachers be paid well?), the test scores of the students aren’t very good. There are of course plenty of excuses as to the reason.

What Vanderhoek did at the end of the first school year was fire two teachers. They just weren’t good enough, not cutting it. How Vanderhoek would know is anyone’s guess. He spent a scant three years as a classroom teacher before heading to the corporate trough.

He never made it past the rookie stage. It takes at least four years to earn tenure in most states. He appears to be another aspiring teacher who couldn’t imagine himself in a classroom full of children for the next 30 years or so and opted instead to abandon the classroom in favor of building a corporate career, ala Michelle Rhee and others.

Couric, in her interview with Vanderhoek, after noting the high pay, dismal results and the firing of the not-cutting-it teachers, had the presence of mind to ask Vanderhoek this  question: “You’re the head of the school, the principal. Why do you get to keep your job?”

As if blind to his earlier statements about how rigorous the standards are at TEP for everyone, he answered: “Ultimately to build an excellent organization is going to take time. And if that doesn’t happen let’s say four years from now, then I shouldn’t keep my job.” Oddly enough, the charter is only good for four more years.

The sheer hypocrisy of Vanderhoek’s statement is difficult to imagine. The teachers, who are being judged by a rookie who spent a mere 3 school years as a real teacher, are fired after one year if he decides they aren’t good enough. He, however, grants himself the entire 5 year span of the charter to do well.There seems to be a cognitive disconnect going on here.

In addition, he says that tenure should be abolished, on the grounds that no one should be granted a position for life. It is quite obvious from this statement that he is completely ignorant as to what tenure is. No teacher has ever been granted a job for life. Tenure, earned after 3 or 4 years in the classroom, simply grants due process rights to the teacher. Nothing more, nothing less.

Couric also spoke with Joel Klien, who lost his job as head of the NYC schools last year. Like Vanderhoek, he doesn’t like tenure. His take on it? If you are breathing, you get tenure. Klien says it’s almost impossible to get rid of a bad teacher. That is an entirely questionable statement. Tenured teachers across the US are fired for incompetence every year.

What is clear to the Eduskeptic is this: Vanderhoek should, by his own standards for the teaching staff, be fired. His ultimate goal has nothing to do with education in the first place. He is busy building a future corporate position for himself.

As for Klien, and Vanderhoek too, what is clear is that there has been a gross failure of leadership, not tenure.

The recent attacks on unions, and especially teacher unions, seem to be an attempt to convince a target audience the unions are at fault for the economic cesspool we are all swimming in.

The rhetoric goes something like this: “The public unions are sucking the state/city coffers dry with their rich paychecks and pensions”, or some variation of this. Absent from the blather by people like Wisconsin’s governor Walker, and other governors and mayors, is any real data to support their claim.

While they do put out numbers, none of them square with the what’s real. It is political posturing that seems aimed more at union busting than anything else. An element of our society, content to simply nod their heads at whatever the political party they are affiliated with says, takes the bait, and repeats it as truth. A lie repeated often enough takes on a life of semi-respectability.

Scott Walker, in 2002, was elected Milwaukee County Executive. It was  during his eight year tenure that he found that he couldn’t dictate to the unions representing county workers. He actually had to engage in negotiations with them. He did not get what he wanted.

His election as Wisconsin’s Governor gave him another chance to show those pesky unions, especially those overpaid, pension rich teachers, who is boss. Through some very questionable and certainly unethical maneuvering, the republicans in the state government managed to strip the unions of some of their bargaining rights.

The problem is that the teachers and unions had, and have, nothing to do with the economic melt down.

In one state, California, the teachers unions, and their negotiated pensions, are fully funded for a minimum of 8 years, and possibly more than 15 years, depending on a single variable in projections. Other states reflect similar results if one only takes the time to dig a little.

Teachers pay into the retirement system, as does the state. The end result is a modest pension for teachers who work 25 to 30+ years in the classroom. No pension system is fully funded at any given time. It is supported each day by those still working and the investment decisions of the system. It’s not a mystery at all. Unless you want it to be.

The almost complete destruction of the worlds economy is 100% the fault of the greed mongers on Wall Street, the bond ratings agencies, and the entire real estate industry, from the agents on through the brokers, loan and title companies, banks, and appraisers. If the Eduskeptic has missed anyone in that system it is an oversight.

The big brokerage houses simply invented a method of creating something out of absolutely nothing, and then doing it again and again. The beginning and end result of what should have been an obviously unsupportable and unsustainable system was this: realtors agreed to sell houses to people who had no possible way to make the mortgage payments; the loan brokers and banks agreed to set these people up with the loans; the appraisers agreed to appraise the houses at whatever was being asked, the brokerage houses agreed to bundle the loans into “securities”, and everyone looked the other way. They were all making an enormous amounts of money.

People with no income, no assets, and no hope of paying a mortgage, found themselves the “owners” of $750,000 homes. It all fell apart at a predictable time, right when the very first teaser rate mortgages reset to the real rate, about 2 years after they were first made. Each year after that, more loans re-set, and more and more people defaulted. How this could be a surprise to anyone is a complete mystery.

How this calamity could ever be laid at the feet of unions, especially teachers unions, is an even bigger mystery. Unless, of course, the entire idea is to divert attention from what the real problems are.

It is simply a load of dung, if one is to be polite about it, shoveled by those who think that if we let big business do what they want, we’ll all be ok. Somehow, I don’t think that entirely works out too well.

As always, assume nothing, verify every thing. Do your own research. You might want to start with Michael Lewis’ latest book, The Big Short. Unless, of course, you’re content with just nodding your head.

In an appearance before Congress on March 9, Education Secretary Arne Duncan may have sounded the death knell for NCLB, or at least the stupid parts of it. He told Congress that 82 percent of America’s schools could fail to meet education goals set by No Child Left Behind this year.

He went on to say that NCLB it is broken and Congress needs to fix it now. A quote from Duncan: “This law has created dozens of ways for schools to fail and very few ways to help them succeed. We should get out of the business of labeling schools as failures and create a new law that is fair and flexible, and focused on the schools and students most at risk.”

It is refreshing to hear some common sense being injected into the debate about our school systems. His thoughts on NCLB, however, are not in any way new to anyone in the K-12 education field who took the time to look at the requirements.

At the small school district where the Eduskeptic taught Kindergarten for 24 years, we regularly devoted time during staff meetings to dissect the numbers that were generated by the testing we did. The grade levels at our school were K-4. Other schools in other districts across the U.S. did the same.

The results of the testing were plotted on a graph against the NCLB requirements. The NCLB trajectory line was a known factor, projected out to the end when everyone was expected to be at the proficient level. Defeating the bell curve, it is important to note, isn’t remotely possible.

What we could see was that during the first few years of NCLB the upward trajectory was pretty mild. Around about now, the line shot up. The requirements for success were much more difficult to meet.

Our children always did very well, overall. When we found problems we tackled them head on. We changed strategies, methods, materials to effect a positive change. Grade levels were very blunt about what needed to be done by other grade levels to reach the goals. No one, except maybe the Eduskeptic, wanted to be taken over by the Feds. The Eduskeptic thought it would be interesting to have them take over as soon as possible, just to show us how things were really supposed to be done.

What we could see was pretty simple. The federal trajectory of expectations was impossible to catch after a certain point. The Eduskeptic isn’t especially mathematically inclined, but he did some simple projections to find out whether our students test scores could make the rapid upward tick that kicks in now.

Just to make sure, the Eduskeptic checked with a colleague, another Kindergarten teacher who is a math whiz, about his data. My reasoning and methods were correct. Over one morning recess, the reality of this catch 22 was confirmed by my colleague. There was simply no possible way, using our available data, to project a line that would meet the NCLB requirements. None. Zero. Barring a wholesale import of 100% genius level elementary students, we would fail.

Secretary Duncan is absolutely correct in his assessment of NCLB. It offers no way to win. There was, and is, only the very real probability that no matter what a school did, sooner or later it would fall into the failed category.

It is almost impossible to imagine that at least 82% of the schools in the United States are actually failing to adequately educate their students. While this may fit into the political sloganeering of some groups, it’s not real. NCLB simply projected a goal that had absolutely no basis in fact, and then proclaimed that not meeting the goal meant that schools were failing. It is, by any standard, absurd.

There is always room for improvement in any school system. The focus must be on how to improve rather than how to blame and punish. Whatever perceived good that NCLB was supposed to offer is more than offset by the damage done by failing to present any reasonable way to succeed.

Secretary Duncan is right. The Eduskeptic hopes that Congress listens and acts accordingly.

As always, assume nothing, verify everything. Do your own research.

While the nation continues to debate the state of education, teachers continue to teach. Some are teaching in absolutely reprehensible conditions while others are in acceptable situations. It’s what we do.

The current budget crisis has shifted the core of the debate from what we can do to make education better to how much of a monetary cut can the schools take. The form of this shift seems to be centered on unions and how reluctant they are to change. The most frequently sited issue that the Eduskeptic has seen is tenure and how to do away with it. It is a useful distraction if one isn’t making much progress on the complexities of educational change.

It is necessary to say that the unions are not the issue, regardless of what a group of pro-business types would like us to believe. As far as the chamber of commerce  and the wealthy owners of large businesses are concerned, any cut in the ability of a union to function is money in their pockets. Meanwhile, across the nation teachers unions and associations have worked with their school boards to make necessary cuts.

What seems to be happening now is that with the very loud and vociferous calls from some state governors and city mayors that unions must be busted, tenure thrown out, pay and benefits cut, a sense of sanity is appearing. The “I will not budge from my position” adopted by Scott Walker is increasingly being seen as a very untenable position.

This is not to say that there isn’t room to make education in this country better. There always is room for that. There are ways to make the tenure laws more understandable to everyone and to effect reasonable change to them. The economic reality of different communities and their schools is a rich ground for understanding and changing how we deliver education to such a very diverse population. The list is long and always will be.

The dose of sanity that is creeping in is a welcome change from the all or nothing rhetoric of some politicians. It seems that the people of this country are far more in tune with reality than the politicians. It’s not really all that surprising. Every action produces a reaction.

As always, assume nothing, verify everything.

All in good time, everything comes around again. A not so new idea, adding more time to the school year, is part of the current discussion regarding our school systems. The common thread that runs through the writings of those who posit that more school days will be of great benefit to the children in school is that many (12or so, actually) other countries have longer school years, ergo, so should we.

It is not the gross amount of time spent in school that matters. It is how that time is spent. If one takes the easy look at the charts, graphs and stats about how many days children are in school, it is easy to conclude that we are lagging behind and that adding days to our school year would be good.

A little more in depth perusal, however, reveals a different story. The number of hours per day that teachers in the United States spend teaching is greater than most other nations. 2007 is the latest graph that the Eduskeptic could find regarding this, but it has been true for quite a while.

A recent post by Paul Martin on his blog puts forth his reasoning for a longer school year. His first statement is that we have the shortest school year among industrialized nations. The link is to a 1991 graph, which is out of date. Again, however, it is not the gross amount of days in the classroom that count, it is how the days and time are used.

Secondly, he believes that a longer school year will result in more material being covered, resulting in better educated students. While this is certainly possible, the Eduskeptics experience with his 26 years in Kindergarten suggests differently, as does a disastrous schedule that the local high school adopted then quickly abandoned some years back.

Our district decided to move to all day Kindergarten from the traditional half day. The exact same argument was made to support the move (more time to teach), which the Eduskeptic was very much against. During our years of half day K, one group would was the morning class, and a completely different group comprised the afternoon class. Every day, for both classes, there were two credentialed teachers, an aide, and probably a parent helper, in the classroom. If one of the teachers were ill, a substitute would be there. We ran three small groups, per session, per day. Two of the sessions were taught by the credentialed teachers, the third, non-academic station, by the parent or aide. Each teacher was responsible for his or her class of 20 to 27 students. That is to say that each of the partners had an AM or PM class as a primary responsibility for planning, evaluating, report cards, and a secondary responsibility for supporting the other teacher and class.

When full day K was instituted, rather than having more time to teach, we ended up with less. Rather than two stations being taught by credentialed teachers per day, only one, in the morning was. The aide, whose time was cut to hour per day, took another, non-academic station. The third station, for small groups, was independent, which meant that neither the teacher or aide could fully concentrate on their group. Any groups taught after the aide left were larger, always with an independent group that also had to be attended to, concurrent with the teachers group. Yes, it was a longer day. We lost a great deal of teacher time during the longer day, especially as pertains to small group instruction, which is the foundation of skills based elementary K-3 classrooms.

The longer year pre-supposes curriculum and activities that will successfully maintain a meaningful learning environment. Perhaps this is possible. It is very questionable though. More doesn’t always equal better.

Another reason for a longer year, according to the blog post, is that it would provide for shorter breaks, resulting in less time spent reviewing what was taught prior to the longer traditional summer break. Indeed, as far as the Eduskeptic knows, there is no valid study that has ever tracked the veracity of this urban myth. It has long been the position of the Eduskeptic that the time required to get the new school year started has as much to do with teachers getting back into it as with students doing so.

Lastly, Mr. Martin states that this is the position that the Obama administration has taken, in order for our children to be globally competitive in the future. Again, a longer school year does not equal a better school year, or students who are better, or perhaps worse, prepared for something in the future.

Not all teachers or parents are in accord with the notion of a longer school year. There is great value in allowing children to be children, to put into practice the many lessons learned in school, in a practical, no teachers involved, break from school.

While the Eduskeptic takes exception to assuming a longer school year will result in better results, Mr. Martins viewpoints are offered in light of a long career in education, and deserve to be considered just as much as other attempts to make our system better. There is no one in the current administration who has any time as a real teacher in a real K-12 classroom. Mr. Martin has spent a career working as a teacher, and his views come from experience, not theory.

As always, assume nothing, verify everything. Do your own research.

California recently decided to change the entry age for Kindergartners. The current law allows children who are 5 years old by December 2d to enroll in school.

California Senate Bill 1381 changes the entry date to September 1st. The change to September 1st will happen in stages. The date changes to  Nov. 1 in 2012, followed by Oct. 1 in 2013 and Sept. 1 in 2014. For those children whose birthdays are later than the entry dates, a transitional Kindergarten program has been authorized.

Kindergarten teachers, and the Eduskeptic is recently retired after teaching Kindergarten for 26 years, generally think this is a good idea. Children who have birthdays that push very close to the December 2d date start their 13 year journey to high school graduation at a developmental disadvantage. This seems to be especially true for boys.

Boys develop at a different rate than girls. This is not new or startling. It’s just simply the way it is. Kindergarten classrooms in California currently have children who start turning 6 years old not long after school starts in August or September. There are children who turn 5 years old in late November, and in the most extreme cases, on December 1. This difference in ages for very young children is very significant when it comes to school. A child who starts school at 4, whose birthday is December 1, will always be the youngest, and most developmentally immature, child in every class he or she is in.

The ongoing effort that seems to push inappropriate expectations and academic standards onto very young children exacerbates this difference in developmental stages. There is no credible evidence that supports making very young children responsible for developmentally inappropriate academic standards. Indeed, it is more likely to damage the children rather than help them in any way.

Very young children react rather badly to undue stress. The Eduskeptic saw it, every year, in his classes. The younger the child at the beginning of the year, the more likely it was that their attention span would tank earlier in small group with concurrent behavior that interrupted the rest of the children. This was magnified by those children whose birthdays push up against the December 2d enrollment cutoff.

While it is not possible, or even advisable, to load classes with children whose birthdays are all at the beginning of the school year, the spread of up to a year between the youngest and oldest is massive. For adults, that kind of spread doesn’t really matter. After about age 25 or so, boys catch up with girls on the developmental stage, and we all march forward, mostly in sync, from there.

For a 4 year old to compete with a five year old in a classroom is, to put it mildly, absurd. The developmental processes between the two are not something that can be diminished. The body and brain processes of the very young simply do not work that way. Children develop at different rates. Developmental processes simply cannot be overridden, no matter how much an adult may want it to be so.

The shift to an older start is, overall, good. It should level the learning field quite a bit. The danger is that the shift, in California, comes with a state sponsored ‘Transitional Kindergarten”.

Along with a state funded Transitional Kindergarten, sooner or later, will come standards for the Transitional K children. Their day will be regimented, and certainly could be all day rather than half day. California currently issues teaching credentials that cover elementary, self contained classrooms, and secondary subject specific credentials. There is no Transitional K credential.

In the Head Start and State Pre-School area, the requirements are for early childhood ed courses, typically with a two year AA degree. All other teachers in the K-12 arena have a baccalaureate degree and a teaching credential allows them to teach in a self-contained or subject specific setting.

Placing very young children in a setting that is too regimented, too long, with standards that can, by default, not be achieved, with adults who do not have the requisite credentials and training to teach in that setting, cannot lead to anything good.

It is almost impossible for the adults in the California Education Department to not lay “measurable outcomes” on the Transitional K group. It doesn’t have to be that way, but it seems that sooner or later, that’s what happens. State pre-school is a good example.

If children who are eligible for the Transitional K (so far, it’s not mandatory) are protected from unrealistic expectations it’s possible that there will be some benefit from the effort. It is vitally important for very young children to simply be allowed to be children. This means that they get to play, to run, jump, fall, argue, sing, sleep, whine, build, knock down what they built, and learn lessons about sharing things, time, and emotions. It’s what children do.

The Eduskeptic sincerely doubts that the adults in charge of any Transitional K class, in any state, at any time, are capable of simply allowing children to be children.

If I am wrong in this belief, I sincerely hope that a reader will take the time to educate me otherwise.