Morning Shots

South Australian teachers are outraged by the website RateMyTeachers.com.

The site asks students to anonymously rate the performance of teachers in categories titled: Easiness, Helpfulness, Clarity, Popularity and Overall Quality. So, why are teachers outraged? What is the problem with sites that rate performance?

After all, the work most of us perform is subject of review. Reviews of workplace performance, for example, are usually detailed and comprehensive. Many of you will agree that these types of performance reviews can be the source of much angst because they are usually linked to rewards. Rewards, means things like rates of pay, opportunity for promotion and so on.

The obvious difference between reviews of workplace performance and websites such as RateMyTeachers.com is that workplace performance reviews are mostly confidential while rating websites are very public.

There are other differences; the most striking being the website allows students to anonymously rate teachers while reviews of workplace performance are formal and transparent. Further, workplace reviews are usually conducted by workplace superiors or peers while RateMyTeachers.com allows students, usually seen as subordinate, to rate their superiors.

According to media reports, worried stakeholders want the site banned. The Australian Teachers Union is concerned that the careers of its members might be destroyed by unsubstantiated defamatory comments. Indeed, most of the commentary to-date focuses on the potential for defaming teachers.

Some South Australian Schools have apparently written to the South Australian Attorney-General asking that the site be banned.

Australian regulators can do little about the site because it is hosted in the United States. Sure, schools can block student access to the site but only while they are at school. Banning access could backfire – a bit like the proverbial waving of the red flag. In any event, the site is moderated and most, but certainly not all, of the

Read More …

I read three items recently that led me to the conclusion that many people don’t really understand who public education is intended to help. I’ve always thought that public education was about preparing California’s children for success in college and the world of work. As I read these articles, I can’t help but feel that other people have a different view.

First, this report from UC Riverside which found that nearly 80% of teachers don’t like the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Is this surprising to anyone? No one likes having requirements placed upon their work. No one likes pressure to improve. Most people would prefer to just be left alone and do what they want. Unfortunately, that’s not how life works.

This doesn’t seem like a very efficient use of public research funds. What will he study next? My guess is in his next study, he’ll find that nearly 80% of children don’t like to each vegetables or clean their room. Perhaps he’ll find that nearly 80% of prison inmates don’t like prison.

The only interesting finding was that the teachers who like NCLB "worked in low-performing schools with high minority populations.” Your gut would tell you that these should be the teachers who hate it the most, but that’s not the case. I suspect that they can appreciate the value of focusing attention on the performance of their low-income and minority students more than they view NCLB as a problem for them.

To me this survey, focused on how NCLB affects teachers rather than how it might change their student’s educational experience, shows that many think public education is about teachers instead of students.

The second article is this opinion piece from Representative Tim Walberg, one of the sponsors of the "Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act"

Read More …

After several years of heated debate, the New York State Legislature, at the urging of the new governor, Eliot Spitzer, doubled the number of public charter schools allowed in New York State, which he labeled a “signature accomplishment.”

The approval of the charter law by wide bipartisan margins signals a growing acceptance of public charter schools across the political spectrum, and throughout the state.  When the original law was adopted in December 1998, charters were widely opposed by state legislators who frankly only supported the law because then-Governor George Pataki would not have approved a pay raise for them if they refused.

Yet, charter schools now inspire enthusiastic support from key Democrats like Governor Spitzer, Lt. Governor David Paterson, and Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith.  In recent years, the Republicans in the State Senate have gone from general hostility to supportive, led by Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, from upstate.   

Whereas New York City Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew actively lobbied against the charter school law in 1998, the current schools chancellor, Joel Klein, is a very strong charter school advocate, believing that charters can leverage change in the broader public system, a view shared by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The key political opponent to charters remains Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver of Manhattan.  Even Silver is mindful, however, that several of his members have become charter supporters in recent years, especially those representing economically-disadvantaged minority districts where some of the worst district schools are located.

The depth and breadth of this political support is why school district officials, the teachers unions, and their political allies ultimately were not able to push through various measures meant to stop or seriously impair public charter schools.  And, such support has enabled the charter movement to continue to have a statewide presence, rather

Read More …