This blog features observations from Randy Turner, a former teacher, newspaper reporter and editor. Send news items or comments to rturner229@hotmail.com
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Video- R-8 executive directors, Huff unhappy with Core Collaborative vote
From last night's Joplin R-8 Board of Education meeting- The 4-3 vote not to retain the expensive Core Collaborative consulting group and the reaction of the various R-8 executive directors who pushed it for the last two months.
This "new" way of thinking and aligning curriculum should have been done long before this "guru" was hired. If you aren't informing the students what they know, how they know it, and where they can take that knowledge in your classroom, you're probably a bad teacher anyway. Success criteria and Learning Intentions are fancy words for goals and standards. We don't need a $100,000 contract with this guy to know that.
Our district wants to build an entire curriculum around Visible Learning. Here are some quotes from an article addressing the scientific validity of John Hattie's book:
"John Hattie seems to be a leading figure in the field, and while he seems to be a decent fellow, and while most of his recommendations seem somewhat reasonable, his magnum opus, Visible Learning, has such significant issues that my one friend who's a professional statistician believes, after reading my copy of the book, that Hattie is incompetent."
"Today, then, I want to address a couple of the statistical weaknesses in Hattie's work. These weaknesses, and the fact that they seem to have been largely unnoticed by the many educational researchers around the world who have read Hattie's book, only strengthen my doubts about the trustworthiness of educational research. I agree with Hattie that education is an unscientific field, perhaps analogous to what medicine was like a hundred and fifty years ago, but while Hattie blames this on teachers, whom he characterizes as "the devil in this story" because we ignore the great scientific work of people like him, I would ask him to look in the mirror first. Visible Learning is just not good science."
"The most blatant errors in Hattie's book have to do with something called "CLE" (Common Language Effect size), which is the probability that a random kid in a "treatment group" will outperform a random kid in a control group. The CLEs in Hattie's book are wrong pretty much throughout. He seems to have written a computer program to calculate them, and the computer program was poorly written. This might be understandable (all programming has bugs), and it might not have meant that Hattie was statistically incompetent, except that the CLEs Hattie cites are dramatically wrong."
"The truth is that Hattie sometimes uses "effect size" to mean "as compared to a control group" and other times uses it to mean "as compared to the same students before the study started." He seems comfortable with this ambiguity, but I am not. Not only is the "barometer" very confusing in cases like homework and multi-grade classrooms, where the graphic seems clearly to imply that those practices are less effective than just doing the regular thing (especially confusing in the case of homework, which is the regular thing), this confusion makes me very, very skeptical of the way Hattie compares these different effect sizes. The comparison of these "effect sizes" is absolutely central to the book. Comparing effect sizes (and he rank orders them in an appendix) is just not acceptable if the effects are being measured against dramatically different comparison groups."
I do-we do-you do is a cheesy way of saying whole group-small group-independent work. Nothing new here. A bunch of hackneyed and cheesy little names for the same ol' thing. And the curriculum that Bloomberg and Stevens were pushing down our throats, after having given up our summer last year to write curriculum? 100% Common Core, all packaged up neat and tidy.
Adams and Stevens look like they could cause someone some pain. Such professional demeanor expressed by all. Poor little Teresa getting her little pat on the back from the WORST administrator that ever lived, Ms. Doshier. At least Cravens and Cantwell had the maturity to push in their chairs and walk away like adults. The rest of them looked like so many spoiled children who didn't get the latest toy. Of course, that is the example that was set for them by their leader.
Maybe this is a small step toward turning this district around. I would say from what I see here is that the next superintendent needs to replace spoiled, inept, unprofessional administrators with those who have experience and capability. If the only way Teresa Adams can get her scores up is with Bloomberg, then she is not fit for that job. Most of them aren't. They weren't chosen to be TLCs and then administrators because they were good at what they do, but because they were willing to do anything they were told to stay out of the classroom. Kick them to the curb.
Welcome to our world, people! Hurts when the Board screws you over, doesn't it. Don't worry, you'll get used to it sooner or later, or you'll just leave. There are better districts out there. Why don't some of you go find them? We'll help you pack.
I'm so tired of hearing about "effect size". If the proposed effect size of Bloomberg's work as presented Tuesday night were added up, our students would be gaining ten years for every one year in school. It just isn't so. There is no magic wand, no easy fix, no instant cure. To have continued with this would have been to have thrown good money after bad. That these administrators cannot see what is wrong here is indicative of what is wrong with this district. They either don't want to think for themselves and solve their own problems, or they are too inept to recognize the problems and solve them. I can promise you that if NCLB were to disappear, the consultant business would die a swift and certain death. It needs to. In Joplin we have had a different consultant group every year, nonstop initiatives, infinite jobs created, all in the false hope that this would be the magic bullet to academic success. The sad fact is that learning is hard work. When students come into the classroom expecting a magic bullet or a pass, they put forth no effort into learning. Discipline is necessary, as well as some creative latitude for the teachers, who historicaly have never been afraid of hard work. Good and engaging materials, quality lessons, effective assessment, and a lot of elbow grease will get the job done. Students in grass huts in some parts of the world are learning at a higher rate than students in R8 in their elaborate schools because the grass-hut group of students are brought up to understand that their futures depend upon that education, and that there is no easy pass. We need to go back to that concept.
I would suggest R8 do some study into the importance of the "grit factor" in education, and that doesn't mean cheesy grits on the lunch tray. Quit letting the students slack, demand hard work, let students fail if necessary, give the teachers what they need and treat them with respect, and all kinds of learning will take place.
For a group of central office administrators with ample time to prepare, this was a terrible presentation and was it was very transparent how they are not qualified to be in their current roles.
I have more, but it's time for me to go do some curls.....but only if I can find a spotter
It always amazes me when I read these comments and how out of touch most of the people that comment are. It seems that truth doesn't matter its all about making negative comments that are very hurtful and untrue. I'm not taking the side of any of the administrators such as Huff, Stevens or Dozier but the principals in Joplin are some of the hardest working people I know. I am a parent and I can tell you that Ms. Adams is the finest, most caring person I know. She cares about her students and parents and puts their concerns first. I venture to say that whoever said those negative things about her doesn't know her at all. The principals have been working under the most stressful of circumstance for the past several years but have still maintained the integrity of educating students. I think if you could visit with any principal without the fear of losing their jobs you will find that children are their first priority. Give credit where it is due, 95% of the principals are top of the line and its amazing that they have stayed with the district during the past 3 years. Ms. Adams has always gone over and beyond for me and my child and my family supports her 100% and if you knew her you would feel the same way. Ask Debbie Fort about Ms. Adams character and teaching/leadership abilities. Ms. Adams taught for her before becoming the excellent leader she is.
Again, we remain anonymous so we don't have our lives destroyed. These folks like to destroy people, including their families. Ms. Adams was not a very good classroom teacher, she may be a better principal but she is definitely still a Huff suck-up. She, Stevens and Doshier are buddies. How many principals are left that weren't picked by Huff and Besendorfer? I know Adams was before that, but not much and, again, she is a suck-up.
This "new" way of thinking and aligning curriculum should have been done long before this "guru" was hired. If you aren't informing the students what they know, how they know it, and where they can take that knowledge in your classroom, you're probably a bad teacher anyway. Success criteria and Learning Intentions are fancy words for goals and standards. We don't need a $100,000 contract with this guy to know that.
ReplyDeleteOur district wants to build an entire curriculum around Visible Learning. Here are some quotes from an article addressing the scientific validity of John Hattie's book:
ReplyDelete"John Hattie seems to be a leading figure in the field, and while he seems to be a decent fellow, and while most of his recommendations seem somewhat reasonable, his magnum opus, Visible Learning, has such significant issues that my one friend who's a professional statistician believes, after reading my copy of the book, that Hattie is incompetent."
"Today, then, I want to address a couple of the statistical weaknesses in Hattie's work. These weaknesses, and the fact that they seem to have been largely unnoticed by the many educational researchers around the world who have read Hattie's book, only strengthen my doubts about the trustworthiness of educational research. I agree with Hattie that education is an unscientific field, perhaps analogous to what medicine was like a hundred and fifty years ago, but while Hattie blames this on teachers, whom he characterizes as "the devil in this story" because we ignore the great scientific work of people like him, I would ask him to look in the mirror first. Visible Learning is just not good science."
"The most blatant errors in Hattie's book have to do with something called "CLE" (Common Language Effect size), which is the probability that a random kid in a "treatment group" will outperform a random kid in a control group. The CLEs in Hattie's book are wrong pretty much throughout. He seems to have written a computer program to calculate them, and the computer program was poorly written. This might be understandable (all programming has bugs), and it might not have meant that Hattie was statistically incompetent, except that the CLEs Hattie cites are dramatically wrong."
"The truth is that Hattie sometimes uses "effect size" to mean "as compared to a control group" and other times uses it to mean "as compared to the same students before the study started." He seems comfortable with this ambiguity, but I am not. Not only is the "barometer" very confusing in cases like homework and multi-grade classrooms, where the graphic seems clearly to imply that those practices are less effective than just doing the regular thing (especially confusing in the case of homework, which is the regular thing), this confusion makes me very, very skeptical of the way Hattie compares these different effect sizes. The comparison of these "effect sizes" is absolutely central to the book. Comparing effect sizes (and he rank orders them in an appendix) is just not acceptable if the effects are being measured against dramatically different comparison groups."
I do-we do-you do is a cheesy way of saying whole group-small group-independent work. Nothing new here. A bunch of hackneyed and cheesy little names for the same ol' thing. And the curriculum that Bloomberg and Stevens were pushing down our throats, after having given up our summer last year to write curriculum? 100% Common Core, all packaged up neat and tidy.
ReplyDeleteAdams and Stevens look like they could cause someone some pain. Such professional demeanor expressed by all. Poor little Teresa getting her little pat on the back from the WORST administrator that ever lived, Ms. Doshier. At least Cravens and Cantwell had the maturity to push in their chairs and walk away like adults. The rest of them looked like so many spoiled children who didn't get the latest toy. Of course, that is the example that was set for them by their leader.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is a small step toward turning this district around. I would say from what I see here is that the next superintendent needs to replace spoiled, inept, unprofessional administrators with those who have experience and capability. If the only way Teresa Adams can get her scores up is with Bloomberg, then she is not fit for that job. Most of them aren't. They weren't chosen to be TLCs and then administrators because they were good at what they do, but because they were willing to do anything they were told to stay out of the classroom. Kick them to the curb.
Welcome to our world, people! Hurts when the Board screws you over, doesn't it. Don't worry, you'll get used to it sooner or later, or you'll just leave. There are better districts out there. Why don't some of you go find them? We'll help you pack.
ReplyDeleteI'm so tired of hearing about "effect size". If the proposed effect size of Bloomberg's work as presented Tuesday night were added up, our students would be gaining ten years for every one year in school. It just isn't so. There is no magic wand, no easy fix, no instant cure. To have continued with this would have been to have thrown good money after bad. That these administrators cannot see what is wrong here is indicative of what is wrong with this district. They either don't want to think for themselves and solve their own problems, or they are too inept to recognize the problems and solve them. I can promise you that if NCLB were to disappear, the consultant business would die a swift and certain death. It needs to. In Joplin we have had a different consultant group every year, nonstop initiatives, infinite jobs created, all in the false hope that this would be the magic bullet to academic success. The sad fact is that learning is hard work. When students come into the classroom expecting a magic bullet or a pass, they put forth no effort into learning. Discipline is necessary, as well as some creative latitude for the teachers, who historicaly have never been afraid of hard work. Good and engaging materials, quality lessons, effective assessment, and a lot of elbow grease will get the job done. Students in grass huts in some parts of the world are learning at a higher rate than students in R8 in their elaborate schools because the grass-hut group of students are brought up to understand that their futures depend upon that education, and that there is no easy pass. We need to go back to that concept.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest R8 do some study into the importance of the "grit factor" in education, and that doesn't mean cheesy grits on the lunch tray. Quit letting the students slack, demand hard work, let students fail if necessary, give the teachers what they need and treat them with respect, and all kinds of learning will take place.
Just a wild guess here; but I think we just heard from one of the remaining 12% of veterans.
DeleteFor a group of central office administrators with ample time to prepare, this was a terrible presentation and was it was very transparent how they are not qualified to be in their current roles.
ReplyDeleteI have more, but it's time for me to go do some curls.....but only if I can find a spotter
Lol @ Cravens
Why prepare when the fix is in?
DeleteWhy is everyone anonymous? I do find validity in Turners reporting but put no stock in people who post anonymous.
ReplyDeleteWell put Anonymous, well put.
DeleteBecause even though change is coming, it's still not here. Thus making it still unsafe to not do so.
DeleteAny other questions?
It always amazes me when I read these comments and how out of touch most of the people that comment are. It seems that truth doesn't matter its all about making negative comments that are very hurtful and untrue. I'm not taking the side of any of the administrators such as Huff, Stevens or Dozier but the principals in Joplin are some of the hardest working people I know. I am a parent and I can tell you that Ms. Adams is the finest, most caring person I know. She cares about her students and parents and puts their concerns first. I venture to say that whoever said those negative things about her doesn't know her at all. The principals have been working under the most stressful of circumstance for the past several years but have still maintained the integrity of educating students. I think if you could visit with any principal without the fear of losing their jobs you will find that children are their first priority. Give credit where it is due, 95% of the principals are top of the line and its amazing that they have stayed with the district during the past 3 years. Ms. Adams has always gone over and beyond for me and my child and my family supports her 100% and if you knew her you would feel the same way. Ask Debbie Fort about Ms. Adams character and teaching/leadership abilities. Ms. Adams taught for her before becoming the excellent leader she is.
ReplyDeleteI can't tell, is that the back of Johnson's big ole fat head?
ReplyDeleteAgain, we remain anonymous so we don't have our lives destroyed. These folks like to destroy people, including their families.
ReplyDeleteMs. Adams was not a very good classroom teacher, she may be a better principal but she is definitely still a Huff suck-up. She, Stevens and Doshier are buddies.
How many principals are left that weren't picked by Huff and Besendorfer? I know Adams was before that, but not much and, again, she is a suck-up.