Philadelphia has been plagued by budgetary and political problems for years, as readers of this blog well know. One of the more recent concerns has been the provision of substitute teachers during the school year. The "fill rate" - to be understood as the percentage of full-time teacher slots with a provided substitute - hovered around 60% for years, meaning 40% of the vacant classrooms either had to combine with other classrooms or be covered by teachers with a full teaching load already.

As a former Philadelphia teacher, I can tell you it is not fun to be mandated to cover a class of students you do not know, for a curriculum you do not teach, when you expected to be able to prepare for your next class or get some grading done so you wouldn't be up late into the night.

The company hired to fill these vacancies - Source4Teachers - guaranteed that on the first day of school they would have a 75% fill right, increasing to 90% by January. Unfortunately, their rate has yet to break 35%. Because of that, news sources like The Public School Notebook have been calling for their contract to be canceled and the old system to be put back into place.

On November 19, Superintendent Hite explained in an email why the situation cannot be changed so haphazardly:

It turns out that the leadership of Philadelphia schools has put itself into a very difficult position: canceling the contract doesn't recoup any money at this point (lucky for taxpayers) but because the old system has been shut down, it would take months to get those experienced teachers back into the classroom. Meanwhile, a bigger problem is lurking that Hite finally let out into the open:

It is evident from this information that the substitute system was in a sort-of crisis when they brought in Source4Teachers. The hardest schools to fill had poor reputations. Instead of attempting to fix those reputations, however, money was spent on a system that hasn't been shown to work. Privatization will do that pretty often.

I can only hope that the leadership of Philadelphia schools can learn from this and put back the old system while working with teachers and community members to figure out how to make substitute teachers' jobs easier in those situations so that schools can get what they need without having to pay and arm and a leg to get it.

Two weekends ago I attended Math for America's (MfA) annual Fall Function and wrote about it in detail. One piece I forgot to mention was a brief video displayed during the program where teachers from all over New York City (and maybe the country - it wasn't clear) talk about their impact on the world around them. It focuses on a central theme/quote:

I particularly appreciate what the teachers say in this video as a showcase to what you can do with the magic of the classroom. You can work with other professionals on cutting-edge research, publish a book of your own, and influence the minds of thousands of the next generation. I am very happy to be a part of this team - both the teaching profession and MfA.

Last week there was a voluntary meeting in my school building after classes closed with two representatives of Educators 4 Excellence, an organization founded by former teachers that works to "ensure that the voices of classroom teachers are included in the decisions that affect our profession and our students." This is a lofty goal behind which I would stand whole-heartedly, if not for their continued requirement of signing their "Declaration of Principles" in order to join the organization. During the conversation it became clear to me that while things may be a bit different on the ground with which teachers join the organization, the principles have not changed and, therefore, anyone who signs up is technically agreeing to all of these bullet points. 

While I agree with some, I thought it would be useful to analyze the few that I disagree with more:

1) E4E supports "an evenhanded performance-based pay structure to reward excellent teachers." 

This sounds wonderful on paper: teachers put more effort in and change the way they do things, and so they will be compensated for it. The most important issues, however, are that this statement tacitly implies that teachers are somehow holding back, not putting all their effort in because they choose not to. Also, who will be the people deciding on the performance standards and gauging whether or not a teacher has met or exceeded them?

2) E4E supports "evaluating teachers through a holistic and equitable system that incorporates value-added student achievement data as one component of effectiveness."

While I am an outspoken skeptic of Value-Added Modeling (VAM) because of what I've read, I still find it interesting that more reports suggest it is a positive step in the evaluation movement. In fact, the reverse has been found true time and time again. The most recent example is from the American Educational Research Association, when they wrote in a recent statement on the use of VAM, "Existing VAM estimates have not been shown to isolate sufficiently the effectiveness of teachers, principals, or other nonteaching professional staff." 

3) E4E supports "giving students and parents more opportunity to choose great schools." 

Whenever I hear or read the something similar to the term "school choice" I think of the charter school movement and its deleterious effects it has had on traditional public schools. The recent example from Success Academy Charter Schools of the "Got to go list" is only one of the egregious uses of public funds. Why can a parent choose to support and change a public school that already exists? Why abandon that school completely and then leave the students that "cannot be helped" by the charter school to a fate with less funding, fewer supports, and more issues? 

The meeting we had was a very good insight into the positions that E4E has traditionally had. Interestingly, the two representatives pushed back a lot on our questions to these principles, saying they were more of an "outline" of what the membership believes. In my opinion, if an organization has a declaration of principles including these three aspects, I am not going to sign on the dotted line, even to get a newsletter. I'm guessing those that read this and signed it either agree with some (but not all) or did not read it closely enough to make an informed decision.

There is one positive thing that came from the meeting, however: I read the New York branch's most recent policy paper on school climate, entitled, Climate change: Creating safe, supportive schools for all students. It discussed the increased use of Restorative Justice and increasing funding for mentorship, training, and implementation. The only snag, however, is that of the 15 authors of the report, I found that only 3 of them have more than five years of experience (when checking on LinkedIn and other sources).

​If E4E is to truly be a diverse community of educators, it needs to have more folks involved at a variety of levels of experience - and they will likely only get that if they reform their Declaration of Principles.

Last night my wife and I had the opportunity to celebrate what the teaching profession should be like at Math for America's annual Fall Function reception. I haven't done a whole lot with the organization just yet since the classes and workshops I've signed up for don't begin until the end of November, so this was a really overwhelming way to get introduced to the community within the organization.

There were at least 1,500 people in the room during the festivities that ranged from a cocktail hour with temporary tattoos, a photo booth, full bar, and amazing conversation with peers. I found a few of my co-workers from school there and connected with other MfA Fellows and their guests. The dinner was quite tasty and they even had enough substantial gluten-free options for my wife (this is always an issue at parties like this). Even though I wore one of my suits, arguably it was a fancier affair in which tuxedos were sometimes worn. I'll have to up my game for next year.

During the dinner there were a few speakers, including Jim Simons, the founder and Board Chair of MfA. This self-made billionaire was quite the comical man and also made important statements about how teachers should be more respected and lauded for their great works. He and the current President, Jon Ewing, made me (and I think the other teachers in the room) feel like we are really making a difference and that we are a part of the next wave of how teachers should be treated in the US. 

There were a few references to attempts made to influence national politics as it relates to the teaching profession as well as the pride they have at the New York State Master Teacher program that mimics MfA's style.

Overall it was an incredible night and I can't wait to take part in my classes this winter!

This morning my wife and I went to the local Barnes and Noble in order to attend the Mini-Maker Faire event organized by the bookstore and my co-worker and Robotics Instructor, Eddie. It was quite an amazing site to see some students from our school participating in the community to share what they have done - and to see the community demonstrate interest. There were regular bookstore-goers and folks like us who specifically wanted to visit for the event.

One of the cooler parts was the demonstration of one of the Brooklyn Collaborative Roboshark's robots in all its glory: the frisbee-throwing robot. Three years ago students designed it for a challenge at the Javits Center and we still have it to show off. It's quite amazing (check out the video below). 

We spent about an hour there talking to students, to Eddie, and some other folks who had come for the event. I'm so glad our school has these kinds of community connections and I wish the same for other schools in NYC.