D150: Taking a look at the research in context

Let’s be fair. District 150 board members and administrators do not claim that shortening the school day by 45 minutes is an educational benefit to students, per se. Rather, they claim that the benefits of (a) common prep periods for teachers and (b) an integrated curriculum outweigh the detriments of a cut in classroom time. They cited three studies to support this assertion at the May 5 school board meeting. Let’s take a look at them.

“On Common Ground – The Power of Professional Learning Communities” by DuFour, Eaker and DuFour

If there is anything that the research community agrees on, it is this: The right kind of continuous, structured teacher collaboration improves student learning and professional morale in virtually any setting. (p. xii) But, like Fullen and Darling-Hammond, Little (1990) found that when teachers engage regularly in authentic ‘joint work’ focused on explicit, common learning goals, their collaboration pays off richly in the form of higher quality solutions to instructional problems, increased teacher confidence and, not surprisingly, remarkable gains in achievement. (p. xiii)

These quotes are from the forward of a book that advocates for a strategy of teacher collaboration called a Professional Learning Community, or PLC. The principal authors have created a whole website devoted to this process called All Things PLC.

What is a PLC, exactly? It’s defined this way, according to the website: “Educators committed to working collaboratively in ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve.” However, they caution, “Collaboration is a means to an end, not the end itself. In many schools, staff members are willing to collaborate on a variety of topics as long as the focus of the conversation stops at their classroom door. In a PLC, collaboration represents a systematic process in which teachers work together interdependently in order to impact their classroom practice in ways that will lead to better results for their students, for their team, and for their school.”

So, what this research is really telling us is that merely sharing prep time is not sufficient to improve student achievement. In order to really be effective — to become a true PLC — teachers must work interdependently, “engage in collective inquiry into both best practices in teaching and best practices in learning,” apply those best practices in their classrooms (which may require learning new skills), and continually assess their results (more than standardized testing), making changes/improvements as needed. In short, they have to develop a “culture of collaboration.”

Thus, the question is, does the district’s plan to provide shared prep time accomplish the benefits they imply it will by quoting DuFour’s research? Possibly. The teachers of each primary school could form PLC teams and use the new shared prep time for such effective collaboration. However, there are some reasons this might not happen.

First, the teachers’ contract lets the teachers decide how they will use their prep time; they don’t have to use the time for collaboration and the administration can’t force them. There are a number of other legitimate activities that can take place during prep times, including planning, grading papers, tutoring, meeting with parents, preparing materials, etc. Teachers may choose to use their prep time for one of those activities. Second, even if teachers do decide to “collaborate,” unless they are doing so in the way described above (and in more detail on the PLC website), there’s no evidence such cooperation will translate into higher student achievement — at least, not according to the research the school district cited. Third, having the common prep time first thing in the morning makes it a convenient time for parents to drop off their children early or seek an unannounced conference with their child’s teacher. These and other interruptions can disrupt efforts to participate in the kind of intense collaboration DuFour advocates.

The bottom line is, in order to ensure that a shared prep time results in the kind of collaboration the administration is (at least implicitly) advocating, the teachers’ contract would need to be renegotiated first. The current contract expires in 2009.

2. “Extending the School Year and Day,” by Thomas I. Ellis ERIC Digest, Number Seven.

Research data reveal, however, that the correlation between time and achievement is far slighter than expected and suggest that the quality of time spent in learning is more important than the quantity.

You can read the full article (originally published in 1984) online here. The quote used by the administration is a good summary of the article. A similar article written by Evans and Bechtel in 1997 said it best when they concluded: “The research literature indicates that time is a necessary but not sufficient condition for improving achievement.”

What these studies are saying is that just throwing more time into the school day is not in and of itself going to make students learn any more or any better. First of all, the goal should not be to simply increase allocated time (the time a student is physically present at school), but to increase the academic learning time (the time a student is engaged in learning material). Ellis further argues, however, that even increasing academic learning time only yields marginal student improvement. He concludes that “the quality of instructional time is more important than quantity.”

The district administrators contend that, based on this study, decreasing instructional time will have minimal effect on student achievement. But that’s not what this research states. It’s tempting to deduce that, since increasing instructional time does not significantly increase student achievement (what the research affirms), then the inverse must also be true. But that’s not necessarily so.

Since it’s been established that time is a necessary condition for learning, we can safely assume that there is some minimum amount of academic learning time required. Indeed, at the very least, enough time must be allocated for teachers to adequately cover federal (No Child Left Behind) and state learning requirements. Furthermore, there is always going to be some minimum amount of non-instructional time as well; things such as lunch, recess, and transition time between subjects are good and necessary components of the school day.

Research on this is available — in fact, I found it referenced by the author of the very next citation from the district. Hinde (see below) references a study done by R. J. Marzano in 2003 titled, “What works in schools: Translating research into action.” Hinde reports that Marzano “calculates that there is an average of 200 standards and 3,093 benchmarks in fourteen different content areas that teachers are expected to teach in a school year. He further estimates that teachers need approximately 15,465 hours to address the content articulated in the standards adequately.” The hours referenced are total hours spread over 13 years (Kindergarten through 12th grade). Thus, 15,465 divided by 13 years equals an average of 1,190 per year; divide that by 180 days per school year and you get 6.6 hours of instructional time per day that’s needed just to adequately meet all standards and benchmarks.

Even without the cut in the primary school day, District 150 is not providing 6.6 hours of instructional time per day currently. They provide 6.5 hours of allocated time. Take out lunch and recess and you’re already at less than six hours of instructional time per day. Cut the allocated time by 45 minutes and and actual instructional time is at or near the Illinois state minimum of five hours per day.

3. “Revisiting Curriculum Integration: A Fresh Look at an Old Idea,” by Elizabeth R. Hinde from The Social Studies (May/June 2005)

The bottom line on the research concerning the efficacy of an interdisciplinary approach to curriculum is that when skilled, knowledgeable teachers employ integrated methods, student achievement is equal to, or better than, that of students who are taught in the traditional separate-subject approach…It is clear from the research that student achievement hinges on the teacher’s ability to integrate content across disciplines effectively in meaningful ways. (p. 107)

Elizabeth Hinde is an advocate for beefing up social studies education in the elementary grades. In her article cited above, we see that she is trying to solve the dilemma of getting more social studies education into a school day that is already too short. The solution she comes up with is “to integrate social studies content with those areas that the teachers are already teaching — an integrated or interdisciplinary curriculum.”

Although this article is not about integrating music, fine art, computers, or physical education into other disciplines, I assume the district cites it because it makes general references to research on integrated curricula. In addition to the quote the district pulled out, I think it’s important to recognize the rest of the paragraph from which it was taken:

For integration to be effective, teachers must have adequate knowledge about the content areas they are integrating, and they must have adequate training in integrative techniques. Furthermore, even though integration has proven to be effective in engaging students and increasing their achievement on standardized tests and other measures of achievement, there are some caveats that teachers and curriculum developers must consider.

First, we need to assess whether the primary school teachers have “adequate knowledge about the content areas they are integrating,” namely art, music, computers, and physical education in District 150’s case. Next, we have to ask what “training in integrative techniques” the district will be offering to these teachers and what that training will cost. Finally, it must be acknowledged that there are effective and ineffective ways of curriculum integration. Hinde warns against several pitfalls including “distorting the … content in the name of integration,” “watering down the content in order to integrate by including bits of information from numerous content areas without proper depth in any of the disciplines,” and “having students participate in activities that lack educational value in any content area and busy-work exercises.”

What controls are in place or will be instituted to ensure that integration of music, arts, computers, and physical education will be effective learning experiences for the children? The district did retain “two full time equivalent specialists per school.” This will help ensure adequate knowledge of those specialists’ subject matter. Each school will have to choose which subjects for which to retain specialists, and which subjects they will have to rely on the primary school teachers to cover starting next year. No teacher training plans in these new areas or on integration techniques in general are indicated.

Final Thoughts

The premise of District 150’s actions is best stated by Board of Education President David Gorenz. Here’s what he said in an e-mail to Bill Collier, the City of Peoria and District 150 liaison:

I would readily admit that the proposal to shorten the day by 45 minutes and change the schedule originated as a means to reduce cost. However as it was studied more by administration and the Board it was felt that there were considerable benefits to the schedule change of establishing a common prep period and a more integrated curriculum. So the question that had to be answered was were the benefits of the schedule change sufficient to outweigh the loss of 45 minutes.

Judging from the research, I do not see how the schedule change outweighs the loss of 45 minutes from the primary school day. Professional Learning Communities and integrated curriculum, if done properly, can provide numerous benefits that may improve student achievement; but there doesn’t appear to be a well-defined plan to ensure those methods will be implemented consistent with the research on which they’re based. Even if they were, the loss of 45 minutes from the school day arguably would negate the gains they would produce.

Dr. Thom Simpson stated at the May 5 Board of Education meeting that “this proposal does not take time away from the teachers – the student will still spend 315 minutes [5 hours and 15 minutes] each day with the teacher.” This statement is misleading. It is true that students will spend the same amount of time with their home room teacher, but they will be losing 45 minutes of (allocated) time with a specialist in subjects such as art and music.

That is no small loss. According to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies’ publication “Critical Evidence: How the ARTS Benefit Student Achievement,” “No Child Left Behind reaffirms the arts as a ‘core academic subject’ that all schools should teach. It puts the arts on equal footing with the other designated core subjects: English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, history and geography.” The time spent learning these subjects is critical to meeting federal standards. It’s not dead time.

By eliminating the 45 minutes of specialist time, the home room teacher will have to pick up the slack by integrating as much of those subjects as possible into the 5 hours and 15 minutes of classroom time that remains — time that, as we’ve seen, is already too short for meeting all the standards and benchmarks required by federal and state laws.

A better option would be to implement PLCs and subject matter integration without shortening the school day so that the quality and efficiency of the time currently allotted can be improved. The Board of Education then would need to find another way to cut costs, but there are many other options available that would not impact student achievement.

49 Questions about the Library

City council members submitted a total of 49 questions about the proposed library expansion. Mayor Ardis collected them and submitted them to the Peoria Public Library Board and expects them to answer them all in writing by next Friday, June 6. The council will then discuss the answers during the June 10 council meeting.

Sadly, there’s no indication which council members asked which questions. Some of the questions are completely irrelevant (e.g.,”Whatever happened to the library at Main and University?”, “Why were the libraries closed the weekend that the high schools had finals?”). Others are designed to call the library referendum into question (e.g., “What percent of the 70% of people that voted for the new library system understand your full plan?”). Some are just idiotic (e.g., “If the downtown museum is successful, would it be possible to position the downtown library at that location?”). There are good questions, too, but I’ll bet almost all of them could have been answered by Gary Sandberg if any of the council members had bothered to contact him.

Below is the cover letter from the mayor. The questions can be seen by clicking the “Read the rest of this entry” link that follows.

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

Jim Ardis
Mayor

May 30, 2008

TO: Library Board & Director
FROM: Peoria City Council
RE: Questions regarding Library Operations and Expansions

Please find the attached questions submitted by members of the Council. Note that all members were asked to submit questions for clarification from your report or possibly some information not included in your report.

We would like to emphasize that this process should not be viewed as second-guessing your work to this point. Our collective goal is to understand your thought process and recommendations and discuss how we can incorporate them into a plan for enhanced library services that can be done within a realistic budget. Every single person on our Council supports strong libraries.

Make no mistake; we feel compromise will have to happen if we are going to move forward. Otherwise we would have approved what you submitted to us 10 days before the decision was to be made. Please acknowledge that the questions attached should be viewed as a starting point and based on your response, will likely generate additional questions. We would like to think good communication will accelerate this process and get us to a point where we can focus on what we can both agree on going forward. We are very confident that Councilman Spears will be able to do an outstanding job as our liaison.

We would like to request that a written response be provided to the Council by 5pm on Friday, June 6th. In addition, we would like to place an agenda item at the June 10 meeting to discuss these questions and answers publicly. There will be no vote taken at that meeting regarding the issuance of bonds. Please advise the City Manager of your ability to provide the written response to these questions and your willingness to participate in Council discussion as outlined.

Thank you for helping us answer these very important questions that were not clear to this point. This due diligence is very important to the decision making process. Have a nice weekend.

Jim Ardis
Mayor

Continue reading 49 Questions about the Library

Sandberg liaison resignation letter

Here’s the letter Gary Sandberg sent to Mayor Ardis announcing his resignation as liaison to the Library Board. This may answer some questions about why he resigned, and raise some other questions about the intentions of the rest of the council:

27 May 2008

Mayor Jim Ardis
419 Fulton Street
Peoria, Illinois

Dear Mayor,
Please accept my resignation as the City Council Liaison for the Peoria Public Library effective at [7:00] PM on 27 May 2008. It is abundantly clear that you do not value my participation as Council Liaison by recent events. At this point I am not sure you and a majority of the Council share mine or even a common vision for Peoria. From my perspective based on behind the scene deals proposed on the 16th of May by Corporation Counsel Randy Ray such as “three negative Council votes would convert to positive votes if the Library would use it’s eminent domain powers against the Elliot’s Site (7807 N. University Street)” is totally over the top and morally, ethically wrong, if not totally illegal. Combine that with the total lack of communication regarding “unanswered questions” appearing at the last moment (after 4:00 on this day) and a last minute deal yet to be offered by Councilman Nichting at 5:30, it is clear that my views and values at it relates to public service and more importantly the public process are of no consequences to you or the Council.

The Library brought forward a product which was the result of a totally transparent process, objective criteria evaluation, careful analysis and recommendations from professional consultants that was totally within the criteria contained in the 2007 advisory referendum. To entertain debate on the merits of that product is healthy, but to politically sabotage those efforts thru these sorts of antics is totally unacceptable to me, so therefore I wish to separate myself from the Council majority that feels actions like these are appropriate.

The past year has been a wonderful experience working with the Library Building Committee, the full Library Board, and the professional Library Administration. They accepted each and every challenge to produce objective recommendations and a multi-faceted program within the referendum budget. I became completely convinced that the public interests were served by their open, transparent and inclusionary actions. The involvement raised my opinion of public service and it’s assurance that with public participation, everyone’s best interest is served. It is sad that the same opinion of public service and it’s transparency is not the rule of the City Council.

At my age, I value time and by the actions of a majority of the Council, they do not share the importance of one’s time. I do not wish to waste their time nor mine by continuing as liaison.

Sincerely
Gary Sandberg, City Councilman At Large

There was a serious proposal to put the new north branch on the site of Elliot’s strip club so the city could take that land and get Elliot’s out of the north end. Besides the obvious ethical violations, that site is too small anyway. The city would have to not only buy Elliot’s, but a number of surrounding sites for that to work, pushing up the cost of land acquisition, razing existing structures, and construction … not to mention the legal battles (if you thought what the City paid for Eagle Cleaners was high, just try to take Elliot’s via eminent domain). This from a council that is only delaying a vote on the library bonds because they are supposedly looking out for the taxpayers’ best interests.

UPDATE: Here’s Billy’s take on the resignation letter.

Here’s the Journal Star’s article.

Sandberg resigns as library liaison; Spears to replace him

I just received this news release from the city:

Mayor Jim Ardis has appointed Council Member Bill Spears to fill the position of Liaison to the Peoria Public Library Board.

Mayor Ardis said, “Moving quickly to appoint a liaison after Councilman Sandberg’s resignation stresses the importance the Council places on having a liaison in place as the conduit to work with the Board, and achieve a consensus that will enhance the library system.”

Gary Sandberg said he resigned at 7:00 Tuesday night, adding, “I’m not wasting any more of my time.” He also said that the council had forgotten they had a library liaison as they were all talking to the library board directly before the council meeting without including Gary.

Ed Szynaka, Peoria Public Library Director, had not heard until this morning that Gary had resigned. He said he was “extraordinarily disappointed” that Gary would no longer be the liaison, and said on behalf of the board that this news was a “very big disappointment to all of us,” adding, “but we will work with Mr. Spears,” after learning that Councilman Bill Spears had been appointed to replace Gary.

I asked Mr. Szynaka about Gary’s comment that the council was going around Gary before Tuesday’s meeting. He said that he and the board were “barraged with communication from council members and the mayor” in the hours leading up to the council meeting. He did not receive any communication from Gary during that time, nor was Gary included on the conference calls that took place. Outside of that, he couldn’t comment on whether Gary was being kept in the loop on the discussions.

Darin LaHood picks up another endorsement

From a press release:

Peoria County Sheriff’s Deputies Back Darin LaHood
FOP Union: LaHood is a ‘strong, viable candidate,’ nearly 70% of membership supporting him

Peoria, IL – Indicating a change is needed with the current Peoria County State’s Attorney’s office, the Sheriff’s deputies local union in Peoria has overwhelmingly opted to support Darin LaHood for State’s Attorney in the November, 2008 election. In making this endorsement, the Union sends a clear signal that the incumbent of more than 20 years has lost touch with the County’s law enforcement sector.

In a letter dated May 20, 2008, President Blaine Duhs of the Peoria County Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #157 said; “The members of the bargaining unit for the Peoria County Sheriff’s [FOP] have taken a ballot vote with the results over 2/3 majority in favor of giving you our endorsement…you are a strong and viable candidate for State’s Attorney and we look forward to working with you…”

Union President Blaine Duhs added, ‘We are endorsing Darin because of his exceptional experience fighting crime, proven ability to work with others to keep our streets safe and commitment to law enforcement to be our partner in public safety. With the highest crime rate in the State during the past five years, Peoria County needs change and a new approach in the State’s Attorney’s Office. Darin LaHood is the right person to bring energy, new ideas and bold leadership to that office.’

“The support of a group of hard working law enforcement officers who battle the crime problem every day is a sign that my message of new leadership and change is being embraced by the public. The Sheriff’s deputies know that we can do better in the State’s Attorney’s Office,” said LaHood. “I am deeply honored to receive the endorsement of these law enforcement professionals.”

Darin LaHood, 39, was born and raised in Peoria. He is a former Chief Terrorism and Federal Prosecutor who served four years with the U.S. Department of Justice in Las Vegas, Nevada. LaHood was also an Assistant State’s Attorney in both Tazewell and Cook counties. LaHood and his wife, Kristen, returned home to Peoria in 2005 to raise their three children: McKay, Luke, and Teddy. LaHood currently practices with the Peoria law firm of Miller, Hall, & Triggs. Darin and Kristen are active in numerous Peoria charitable and civic organizations and are members of St. Vincent de Paul Church. Visit www.DarinLaHood.com to learn more about Darin, volunteer opportunities, or to contribute to the campaign.

Pundit problems

If you’re having trouble accessing the Peoria Pundit site, so is Billy Dennis. I received this e-mail from him moments ago:

Here’s what I know. My server on which blogpeoria.com sites are hosted was experiencing heavy loads all day yesterday. I submitted five trouble tickets on the issue, one each time the server was down.

I was beginning to discuss moving my siles and data bases to another server, when moments ago, I noticed the entire site was suspended. This can happen for a builling issue, when required by law because of illegal content, or because one particular account was slowing the entire system.

I suspect it is the latter. Moving Peoria Pundit to blogpeoria.com may have stressed this server.

I’ll do what it takes to get blogpeoria.com back up. It might required moving the site to a dedicated server or a virtual private server.

Hope everything gets worked out soon, Billy.

Library appeals to public again

Library ad on 5-27-08 newspaperWhen I picked up my Journal Star today, I found this advertisement on the front of it:

Tonight the future of
Peoria Public Library
will be decided.
City Council
6:15 p.m.
PLEASE MAKE
YOUR VOICE
HEARD!
Paid for by supporters of Peoria Public Library

Of course, the public already made its voice heard when it voted to approve a $35 million bond issuance by 72% on last year’s ballot. But they will have to make their voice heard again because that vote was non-binding, and the city council has the final decision on whether to approve issuing the bonds. And some council members aren’t too keen on the idea. Here’s what’s on the agenda for tonight’s council meeting:

Communication from the Interim City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Providing for the ISSUANCE of GENERAL OBLIGATION LIBRARY BONDS, SERIES 2008A, Authorizing the Execution of a Bond Order in Connection Therewith and Providing for the Levy and Collection of a Direct Annual Tax for Payment of the Principal and Interest on Said Bonds.

I expect this to be deferred, but I hope it isn’t. I’m told that this is a good time to buy the bonds because we can get a good rate that will mean less of a hit on property taxes. Delaying this is only going to end up costing the taxpayers more in the long run, so if it’s going to be approved, approve it now. Given the referendum, there’s no political downside to council members voting for this.

On the other hand, if the council is not going to approve it, then they need to do that now as well, so that no more time or money is wasted on the project. It would be most unfortunate if this were voted down, in my opinion. The library system is a basic service and an upgrade should be supported. As the Journal Star recently pointed out, the library folks have done everything that’s been asked of them — they’ve dotted every “i” and crossed every “t.” If the council votes against it, they will be hard pressed to explain how their denial is not arbitrary and capricious.

Let’s not drag this thing out. Vote for it tonight and be done with it. And preferably, vote “yes.”

Wolfmeyer: “It’s not my role…to meet with individuals”

Diane Vespa, parent of two Kellar Primary School students, would like to meet with representatives of the Peoria Public Schools Board of Education to discuss her concerns about the board’s decision to shorten the school day. Here’s the shocking response she received from Board Member Debbie Wolfmeyer:

Mrs. Vespa – I must respectfully decline your invitation to meet with you. It is not my role as a Board member to meet with individuals or groups. None of us as an individual Board member has any authority. Our authority comes as we work as a body. Also, I am not an educator. Therefore, it is important that any ideas, solutions, etc that are presented go through the administration so that they can assess them and report to us. Now I will say that I ask a lot of questions about anything that is presented to us; more questions probably than the administration would like to answer. And I don’t stop asking questions until I am satisfied that I have all the information I need to make a decision. That is what I have done on the current issue. I have asked every question that has been presented to me. That information helped form my decision. If you have any new information you would like presented to the administration, I would be happy to forward it. I respect everyone’s right to their opinion and their right to voice that opinion. Thank you for the obvious time and passion you have for our District.

Debbie Wolfmeyer
District #150 School Board

Attention District 3 2 voters: Wolfmeyer has just announced that she will not meet or talk with you, her constituents, about your concerns. She believes that your concerns should be submitted to the Superintendent, and then she will make her decisions based on what the Superintendent says — i.e., whether he thinks your concerns are valid or not. Let me repeat: Wolfmeyer has just announced that she makes her decisions without any consideration of her constituents’ views; only the administration’s views are considered. She will, however, out of the goodness of her heart, forward your concerns to the administration. But don’t bother asking to meet her face to face.

Remember that in 2011 when she suddenly decides it might be a good idea to meet with individuals and groups in order to get reelected. Remind her that it’s not her role to meet with her constituents. Then vote for someone who believes it is his or her role to meet with constituents and listen to their concerns, and then represent them on the board.