posted
"This all costs money. The "district" will ensure the school receives assistance... but the district gets money from tax dollars, not the government." All money the government and your school district has comes from taxes. In FY2004 NCLB has given schools $24 billion dollars to pay for added costs. So the district does get money from the federal government.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
$24 billion nationwide. With 50 states, that's $480 million per state.
There are 21 counties in NJ. So, that's about $23 million per county.
There are 22 districts in Essex County, and 11 charter schools (lets list those as 1 county). Dividing $23 million by 23 gives you about $1 million per district.
Taking Montclair for an example (with it's annual budget of $92 million plus). That's an increase of just about 1%. There are 11 schools in Montclair, giving each school about $91,000 dollars.
Taking the average cost per pupil of $10,000 - that's an extra 9 kids that can be taught per school. Or, taking the starting first-year teacher salary average in Essex County of $40k plus benefits on top of that, you're talking maybe 2 new, inexperienced teachers.
Throw in the need for computers/technology, training, smaller teacher to student ratios, more special education support, increased free/reduced lunch programs, new curriculum development, after school tutoring, etc, etc...
This is where the term "underfunded mandate" comes from. It's like giving someone a quarter and telling them to go get a burger.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that not every school needs or should get the same amount of money so your breakdown is flawed from the start, and your entire schools budget is not funded from NCLB, this is additional money to the $92 million you are already receiving, not replacing it
posted
So, when schools that have greater need get a greater share, schools with lesser need (Montclair) get a lesser share.
Montclair then gets even less money to meet the standards set by NCLB. And they've missed their AYP in four areas for three straight years already - and likely will miss their fourth this year.
With very little federal funding.
So, it falls upon the district to find the money somewhere for all manner of reform - even though the school averages in the 80th percentile on its tests.
Again, one size fits all does not work.
The failing school in Mississippi gets a huge infusion of funds and governmental support, boosting its infrastructure, adding teachers, adding technology, increasing learning, and making night-and-day changes. Their scores may go from the 20th to the 60th percentile. NCLB is a resounding success! Pats on the back all around!
The successful school in NJ that is falling behind in a few key areas gets incredibly little from the federal government, but must still add teachers, infrastructure, technology, etc. To do this, they cut programs like wood and mechanics shop, art programs, and music programs. They go to the voters with an increased budget, and it gets shot down, forcing teacher benefits to be affected as they scramble for money. Huge focus is placed on improving those few areas, but test scores slip from 80th to 78th percentile. NCLB is a terrible failure! Something must be done!
It's a flawed program. For some schools it's great. For others, it's awful. One size doesn't fit all.
For every success story, there's a horror story. And six years later, there's no significant improvement overall. If anything, we're drifting towards the middle - the low points are coming up as the high points fall down.
You even get idiotic proclamations like my sister's district in Maryland made saying "by 2012, 100% of students will score in the 80th percentile or better!" If 100% are in the top 20%, something is wrong with your math.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So, when schools that have greater need get a greater share, schools with lesser need (Montclair) get a lesser share." Doesn't that make sense? How else would you do it? Schools with a lesser need get more?
From the Montclair website Montclair "We are most proud of our efforts on the State tests, which were administered last spring. As you may have read in the paper, all of our schools, with the exception of Mt. Hebron and Montclair High School, made the Adequately Yearly Progress benchmarks as established by No Child Left Behind. Mt. Hebron missed the cut by one indicator; while Montclair High School missed it by two indicators out of a possible forty. Glenfield, Hillside and Rand Schools’ achievement results were notable enough that they were not cited this year as needing improvement. Bradford, Edgemont, Northeast, and Watchung continued their strong performance. The annual student performance report, which provides a comprehensive review of the data, will be available to the public later this fall." Things do not sound that dire to me, sounds like Montclair is improving as it should be? "Again, one size fits all does not work." I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean since it is up to the state to first set standards and then each district develops the plans on how to improve their own test scores and other areas. Because NCLB is not perfect you want to completely destroy it? "For every success story, there's a horror story. And six years later, there's no significant improvement overall. If anything, we're drifting towards the middle - the low points are coming up as the high points fall down." Really? Do you have the proof of this?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it seems their unwritten policy of no longer classifying black males for special education has worked. I haven't worked there in two years, but the way of improving scores for special education (in Glenfield and MHS) was to exclude students who already were failing from the special education programs, especially black male students. When the students who would bring down certain indicators were left in the general population, their low numbers were balanced out.
Houston showed the world how to get your numbers up. It's just a matter of following their example.
quote:Because NCLB is not perfect you want to completely destroy it?
Not at all. As I've said, it works great in some areas. But not in others. Stop using it in the areas where it's not working.
(I noticed, btw, that you backed off of the "everyone gets plenty of money from the federal government" argument. Do you know what was cut at Montclair over the last five years to pay for all the changes?)
There are many school districts who have chosen to forego federal funding to exclude themselves from the program. Unfortunately, most schools do not have budget flexibility to afford this luxury.
quote:Really? Do you have the proof of this?
All my evidence is from my experience on the ground and seeing things first hand. Gifted and talented program funding being cut to fund remediation, increased standardized test prep at the expense of curriculum enrichment, etc.
All so that some standardized test averge increases - even if those students who got a proficient score in math can't figure out change of a twenty without a calculator.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I noticed, btw, that you backed off of the "everyone gets plenty of money from the federal government" argument. Do you know what was cut at Montclair over the last five years to pay for all the changes?" I wasn't aware that I had to reiterate every arguement in every post. In any case, I would not, and did not, say the everyone gets plenty of money from the federal government for two reasons. One, schools will never have enough money. You could triple the spending for a district and it will still need more money. Two, the district does not say how much money it gets from the federal government so there is no way to say how much they get, or more importantly, if they are spending it wisely. "Well, it seems their unwritten policy of no longer classifying black males for special education has worked" Shouldn't that be stopped? Shouldn't we be happy that they have dropped the racist attitude of male blacks can't learn? Or did I miss something? "I haven't worked there in two years, but the way of improving scores for special education (in Glenfield and MHS) was to exclude students who already were failing from the special education programs, especially black male students. When the students who would bring down certain indicators were left in the general population, their low numbers were balanced out." Again, shouldn't we be happy that now those students are no longer neglected and forgotten? Now they are picked up by NCLB instead of simply dismissed from special education programs. I could be misunderstanding what you are saying though. "All my evidence is from my experience on the ground and seeing things first hand. Gifted and talented program funding being cut to fund remediation, increased standardized test prep at the expense of curriculum enrichment, etc." Quick Facts These Quick Facts seem to say otherwise? "All so that some standardized test averge increases - even if those students who got a proficient score in math can't figure out change of a twenty without a calculator." How is that a fault of NCLB? Using calculators is allowed, or not allowed, by the state or local districts, not NCLB. Remember that your state creates your tests, not NCLB.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm at work, so I must be brief. I'll try to write more at home. A couple of points.
quote: wasn't aware that I had to reiterate every arguement in every post.
- I open with a statement that schools lose money when they fall behind on AYP. - You follow saying that is a myth, and they actually get more money than. - I say that the increased money doesn't come close to covering what is needed to meet guidelines. - You say that money has been increased by $24 billion. - I say that is a pittance per school on average, especially with increased requirements. - You say that different schools get differing amount based on need. - I say that the schools that get less based on need still have to cover costs, and have to pull from other areas to cover new guidelines. The money they get doesn't cover the needed increases in spending... thus, they are getting less than they are asked to spend. Hence, underfunded mandate. - You stop talking about it.
quote:Shouldn't that be stopped? Shouldn't we be happy that they have dropped the racist attitude of male blacks can't learn? Or did I miss something?
Maybe I wasn't clear. It's not that they're looking for parity - they were actually not allowing *any* black male students to be classified at all, for anything. Whether they exhibited obvious indicators for dyslexia, fine motor difficulties, or otherwise.
As long as low functioning Special Ed qualifying students were in the general population, they could be balanced by others. Put them in a smaller data set, special education students, and they pulled down the average. Solution? Don't let them into the smaller data set.
Actually, our success stories couldn't drop their classification because their high scores would be lost, and the students who most needed help couldn't be classified because their low scores would be added. All newly classified students dropped the test average, so they severely limited the students who could receive help.
That's not at all what we want to be doing. We should be offering more help to those who need it, not denying them the help they need.
quote:These Quick Facts seem to say otherwise?
You have to understand that Montclair is a PR school, first and foremost. From the outside, they put a shine on everything. We fired our principal? No, she moved to an administrative position in Trenton. We fired our superintendent? No, he also moved to an administrative position in Trenton. We fired a middle school principal after only a year, who was fired from his previous job after only two years? No, he's now a trainer of principals for the state... in Trenton.
All you need to do to get ahead in NJ educational politics is get booted from Montclair, it seems.
Having Montclair on your resume opens all kinds of doors, because of their political/PR image. However, get past the surface of the shiny apple and you find the worms.
They didn't mention in that article that they did not meet AYP from 2002-2005, for example. Nor did they mention the severe achievement gap between black male students and the rest of the student population. Nor did they mention the teachers arrested for embezzlement, or the students arrested for assault on school property, or the growing influence of gangs in the schools.
Nor do they mention the students whose parents send their kids to nearby private Montclair Kimberly Academy, because the best students are known to fall through the cracks in the public school.
But why would they? Just like why would the designers of NCLB show you the places where it doesn't work?
Okay... I really need to do some work, as this has taken up way too much of the workday so far. Hopefully more when I get home.
posted
Oy, I only skimmed through this thread, I didn't read every post but, my feelings on education, somewhat disjointed, as follows:
First off, realize that not everyone is going to college. Everyone CAN'T go to college. There aren't enough spaces, to say nothing of the fact that someone is going to have to do the millions of tech and manufacturing jobs this country, despite popular opinion, still has. Push tech and trade schools. They are well paying jobs, and they need to be worked just as much as we need college grads.
Second, reevaluate what our students need to look like when they get out of high school. What do we really want them to know? To be prepared for? We're living in an increasingly interdependent world, with cultures mixing into each other, and globalization ensuring that Americans can't just depend on walling themselves off. So:
We need to push foreign languages. Kids should be coming out of high school semi-fluent. It's not hard, kids all over the globe do it, else we wouldn't have so many English speakers world-wide.
They need to have critical thinking skills. It's not good enough to know that 3x7=21, that's just rote memorization. They need to be able to solve a complex problem that won't necessarily have a formula already created for it in a text book somewhere. We're creating little drones that memorize and spit facts back out like ATMs, not critical little child computers.
They need to have better interpersonal skills, and need to be able to functionally work together with a larger team of individuals. Inventions, innovations, jobs, a lot of the world today is built upon a team oriented foundation. They need to be able to function as a cog in a well oiled machine, not little mavericks.
They need to have a LOT more knowledge on the world around them. US social studies classes tend to focus far too much on US history, and not enough on World events. US history IS very important I feel, and I say this as someone who plans to be teaching social studies in a couple years. But they need to know what the situation in India is like, and Africa, Europe, China, all over the world. We need to create world citizens, not just US citizens. It'll help us compete in a global world better.
Foreign language, critical thinking, world knowledge, interpersonal skills, and more. If anyone has anything to add to that list, feel free to do so.
Why are we demanding that so many of our kids take a combined eight years of math and science? Yeah I know, that's four of each, but really, we KNOW that they aren't going to use all that. I think it's important to give every kid a good range of all their academic options, but I think that's far too narrow minded, and I think it wastes a lot of time that could be used prepping kids for other areas of education that'll help them when they get to college. We're using the same theories on education from the 50's, in a world that is vastly different from that one.
Teachers need to be paid more. We can't up their standards, constantly demand more from them, demand that they have a four (even though it's really a five or six) year degree to be able to teach kids, and them pay them less than a garbage collector. If you expect someone to shell out $40K to get that college education you're demanding of them, in a nation with skyrocketing education costs, it is RIDICULOUS to expect them to go into a career that pays $45K a year on average (though starting salary for a teacher is more like $30K), when a different four year degree could earn them thousands more right out of college. And we wonder why there aren't enough skilled teachers? For any other profession in America you pay what you have to, to lure the skilled people to the job you need them to perform. Why should education be any different?
For anyone interested, there's a special commission report being released this week on American education, the system, recommendations to fix it, etc.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why are we demanding that so many of our kids take a combined eight years of math and science? Yeah I know, that's four of each, but really, we KNOW that they aren't going to use all that.
I agree with everything you've said except for this. It doesn't matter whether or not people are going to use the math and science they learn. They still need to know it so they can make informed decisions once they get out of high school. People need to be able to look at a sensationalistic news story and know that it's ridiculous. They need to know what the scientific method is and how it is applied. In addition to topical knowledge, math and science both teach important critcal thinking skills.
We're becoming a more scientific/technical society, we need to prepare children in high school for that reality.
I would add that there need to be more computer courses offered in high schools. Our high school had two, I believe. That's ridiculous, when a cursory examination of job requirements will tell you that computer skills are increasingly required in all jobs.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight, I am curious. Do you teach, have children, or speak with people who do? As a teacher and a parent, I love reading your facts, but I do not see your facts as the reality I am living.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great points, Lyrhawn. I'd like to add that in the earlier stages though, our el ed kids aren't even getting the rote mem. part. So, all the "critical thinking" aside, a child that can't add 2+2 and get 4 or multiply 5X5 for 25, or know the difference between the're, there, and their (for example) will still do poorly in the upper grades.
We MUST get back to some basics in el ed, and yes, include more languages and world studies. El ed is a great age to get those interested kiddos hooked on learning about our world and how to communicate. Takes some of the tedium away from the needed rote work. *smile*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Why are we demanding that so many of our kids take a combined eight years of math and science? Yeah I know, that's four of each, but really, we KNOW that they aren't going to use all that.
I agree with everything you've said except for this. It doesn't matter whether or not people are going to use the math and science they learn. They still need to know it so they can make informed decisions once they get out of high school. People need to be able to look at a sensationalistic news story and know that it's ridiculous. They need to know what the scientific method is and how it is applied. In addition to topical knowledge, math and science both teach important critcal thinking skills.
We're becoming a more scientific/technical society, we need to prepare children in high school for that reality.
I would add that there need to be more computer courses offered in high schools. Our high school had two, I believe. That's ridiculous, when a cursory examination of job requirements will tell you that computer skills are increasingly required in all jobs.
You can't add all the classes that we need to add, and keep all the other stuff, without adding years onto school, or hours onto the day.
If you could give me some examples of how advanced physics and calculus are going to do the things you say, then alright, otherwise I think it's just wasting time. I took four years of science, and three of math in high school. I could've done with one less year of math, and one less year of science. I know everyone isn't the same, but I already had all the skills you're talking about before I took those classes, and I would have rather taken either more language, or music, or world civ classes. Why shouldn't I be allowed to make that decision for myself?
I think kids should have more computer classes too. This all requires a massive restructuring from K through 12. If I see information that proves me wrong, I'll change my mind, but there's so many other fundamental things that I think need to be changed, I'm not too attached to an extra year one way or the other of math or science, I just haven't seen any proof that it's all necessary, just assumptions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as you're requiring 3 years each of math and science, I agree with you. That was not at all clear from your initial post.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr- The thing is, if you talk to people interested in math and science, they'll say the exact opposite thing. That we should drastically reduce the amount of English, Foreign Languages, and Social Studies schools require, and drastically increase the amount of math and science.
I think the current system is the best compromise between the two positions.
Actually, I have much more complex opinions, but I have two finals tomorrow that I really need to study for. So I don't have time to write an essay on the subject.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, if you talk to people interested in math and science
Like me?
quote:they'll say the exact opposite thing. That we should drastically reduce the amount of English, Foreign Languages, and Social Studies schools require, and drastically increase the amount of math and science.
Disagree. Perhaps you meant some people who are interested in math and science? (And my dad, who is a mathematical physicist and has acted as a consultant for LA Unified, does not think they should be teaching MORE math. He thinks they should be using better textbooks. )
quote:I think the current system is the best compromise between the two positions.
I agree with that, mostly.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, if you talk to people interested in math and science
Like me?
quote:they'll say the exact opposite thing. That we should drastically reduce the amount of English, Foreign Languages, and Social Studies schools require, and drastically increase the amount of math and science.
Disagree. Perhaps you meant some people who are interested in math and science? (And my dad, who is a mathematical physicist and has acted as a consultant for LA Unified, does not think they should be teaching MORE math. He thinks they should be using better textbooks. )
I'm actually talking about "friends" here at Purdue. Purdue tends to breed an arrogance and self-righteousness in its engineering students that really isn't particularly attractive.
Edit (to make clear): So my opinion is rather biased. I've had this argument with people here many times, though, so it's a sore subject with me.
Purdue has seriously messed with my psyche.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. This is, I am told, traditional among engineering students of many (if not all) universities. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do high schools require 4 years each of math and science now? When I graduated in 2003 my high school only required 3 years of science (physical, biology, and chemistry) and completion of algebra II in math.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: Do high schools require 4 years each of math and science now? When I graduated in 2003 my high school only required 3 years of science (physical, biology, and chemistry) and completion of algebra II in math.
It's a state thing. Ours required 4 years of math and 3 years of science. I actually took 5 years of math and seriously wish I'd taken 4 years of science, even though I'm a political science major now.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just talked to a good friend of mine, ironically an engineering student at Purdue, and she too thinks there needs to be more math and science, and much less social studies. Quite frankly I don't know how much less social studies can get before we just don't have it anymore. One year of US history, one year of world history, a half year of government, and a half year of economics. Yeah, that'll do it. 4,000 years of world history, 300 years of American history, how the world economy works, how our government works, all boiled down to the tiniest possible nutshell we can fit it in. But hey, I can see why we'd need to sacrifice that.
I'm curious to see how the experiment works in Florida, where kids have a bit more control over what classes they take.Florida Schools now require kids to take a set number of math/science/english and social studies courses, but then allows them to pick eight classes over four years to suit whatever career field they think they want. They can change their "major" at the beginning of each year of they want. It's really not much different, looking at it, then most other schools. I think they could kick it down to three years of math, and three years of English, and require a language (but then, I think language studies should start in elementary ed, but that's another issue) for two years. If they want to take more math, they have eight classes where they can choose to.
I need to see more studies. I think the problem is not in high schools, it's that kids need to be at a higher level than they are by the time they reach high school, which would make so much of this unnecessary, and they could focus on other things.
To clarify though, I'm not suggesting anything less than 3 mandatory years for science, and 2.5 to 3 years mandatory of math. I think better textbooks, better teachers, better students and better tests could streamline some of the process, maybe even eliminating a semester or two. But I also think this underscores how a cookie cutter might not be the best solution for the education system. Engineering students might have wished they had more math and science classes, I'm a History major, I wish I could have taken three or four more history classes. Maybe students should be given more control over their curriculum. Not TOTAL control by any means, but more. It's something I'd like to see studied or experimented with at least.
I think we should look at offering some sort of summer class web based component too. Maybe once or twice a week kids could go to school, and then do the rest of their learning in some sort of either online classroom, or through reading assignments/worksheets to get ahead. Summer vacation can still be summer vacation, but they can still be doing something to get ahead. Public school should take better advantage of the web. We had a forum in my AP English class that we posted on. Our teacher read all the posts every week and counted them, and we got credit based on participation (and a bit on quality of content). There was some amazing discussion going on in those forums about books, and world issues. And it was anonymous, people had display names just like here, so no one felt particularly afraid to jump in and discuss. English classes could have summer reading projects, combined with a web based forum component that the teacher could check, and add to, from their home.
Maybe for a summer math course, the student will get a CD-Rom, containing a few lessons, the email address of their teacher for the following semester, and a website with worksheets they can print out. Every other week they can take an online quiz that their teacher will check. It won't be an intensive, everyday thing, and there's no set homework. If they have a question, they can email the teacher.
Maybe for an extended summer history course, the student will get a few books to read, or a small textbook, and they'll have reading assignments, and they'll have to write a paper once a month to be submitted by email to their teacher. It promotes good writing schools, critical thinking, research skills, and is good world culture knowledge, depending on the courses offered.
I think in their freshman and sophmore summers, it should be optional that they can take these sorts of classes, with the knowledge that doing so might free up class time for more electives in the arts or foreign language. In the Junior and Senior summers, it should be mandatory, getting them prepped for college. Two online classes a summer isn't going to kill anyone. Just some ideas.
Edit to add: I want gym class overhauled too. I think one year of gym SHOULD be required, but drastically different than what I had. My gym was freshman year of high school. Half a semester was marching band (thank God), then I had to do swimming, then a whole semester was spent playing baseball, soccer, flag football, etc. I'm sorry but, school is for learning. I already know how to play all those sports.
I'm okay with a swimming component, as I wasn't a very strong swimmer before, and it was helpful. Other than that, I think gym should be changed into a nutrition/exercise/weight training program.
I think teenage years are the best time to explain nutrition to kids, as they are very vain, and what better time is their to explain that eating unhealthy food will make them fat, unattractive, and die early. That'd scare me enough to pay attention. Teach them how to eat healthy.
Then teach them how to work out. Teach them to use free weights, some health human anatomy stuff, and how to create a workout program. Combine that with cardio exercise, and how that that works with weight training and a great diet. Even if they ignore everything they are told and remember none of it (which I HIGHLY doubt), it's a million times more constructive than playing kickball for an hour each day.
posted
I think there's a common misperception that math and science "look better" on an application than humanities. While students want to be well-rounded, if something won't fit on their semester schedule they tend to swing away from the humanities.
It's ironic, because the reason we have a writing section on the SAT now is because universities complained that they were admitting students who were weak in those areas.
quote:We had a forum in my AP English class that we posted on. Our teacher read all the posts every week and counted them, and we got credit based on participation (and a bit on quality of content). There was some amazing discussion going on in those forums about books, and world issues. And it was anonymous, people had display names just like here, so no one felt particularly afraid to jump in and discuss.
I would've loved this. It would have convinced me to try out AP English.
At my high school they've started letting students choose different "tracks." We had a math/science heavy track, a humanities-heavy track, a tech track and a finance track.
Every math class had a summer assignment and all the English classes had a reading list you needed to get through before school started. The one thing I didn't like about summer reading assignments was that it sometimes prevented me from reading books I actually wanted to read, since I didn't have as much time to do so during the school year.
posted
No clue if anything about this has been said already but I know for a fact that in my home state teachers didn't have to take a class about teaching kids with learning disabilities until a few years ago (post NCLB I believe). This means I being an aspie had such a hard time in school just because the the teachers had no clue how to handle me. Honestly if it was math, social studies, reading, spelling, or science they would ignore me because I was either good at them in the first 3 cases or bad in the last 2.... and simply put they could ignore me and didn't have the knowledge to deal with me (yelling at and touching an aspie are two things you defientally don't want to do... wonder why it was done with me so much). If NCLB has done nothing else I am glad it has stopped with teachers not knowing how the heck to deal with LDs... even if we are still ignored.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to disappoint you endersdragon, but even under NCLB education majors are only required to take 1 class that introduces us to the "exceptional learner" which is 3 semester hours and then a 1 hour lab where I think we do some observing of EL classes.
I don't think four semester hours out of the 150 I'm required to take is going to make that much of a difference. In those four semester hours we are supposed to get an overview of working with kids with all kinds of learning challenges, from physical disabilities to autism to gifted and talented kids. I don't think four hours is enough time to even adequately cover what I'd need to know to work with autistic kids, much less adequate to prepare me for working with every other type of exceptional learner I'll see in my classroom.
But then again, the whole special education system needs to be overhauled, there are so many issues like mainstreaming vs. separate classrooms, and getting the funding needed to meet IEP goals...it's a mess. Parents of exceptional kids need to pretty much become full time advocates for their kids, and often they feel they are in a battle against the administration to get the services their kids require.
I don't think NCLB has helped this situation, in fact most people I know who are either teachers or parents of exceptional kids think it's worse now than before.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elizabeth, I work in a large school district where the majority of the student population are minorities. I'm also very active in another tiny mostly white school district. Every school is different so you may not have the same issues we have but I know you will have some common themes, such as not enough time and certainly not enough money. Things are not always as they seem though. Again, using my school district, we are the poor urban minority filled district with large class sizes that has no money, yet we are hiring new administrators all the time. For the cost of each administrator (plus new office furniture, secretary and all the other stuff) we could hire 2 new full time teachers. We can't buy books but we can put in a brand new, state of the art HVAC system (costing hundreds of thousands of dollars) in the Administration Building where the newly purchased window AC units were working just fine. So did we really not have the money to buy books or hire new teachers? We always say that we are the poor innercity school district, and not funded like our surrounding rich white school districts are, but we receive tens of millions of dollars more than they do in state and federal funds, grants, and the like. That money is not counted in our budget though so it is impossible to say how much we truly spend to educate a child. In my opinion, I do believe many districts shortchange the classrooms so they can get more money. I am sure your district is filled with similar examples of poor leadership and financial mismanagement. We have rapes in our elementary schools that go unreported (until after the 4th time a parent called the police first and didn't trust the district to handle the problem), theft that is unreported, and so on. Take this post from FlyingCow: "You have to understand that Montclair is a PR school, first and foremost. From the outside, they put a shine on everything. We fired our principal? No, she moved to an administrative position in Trenton. We fired our superintendent? No, he also moved to an administrative position in Trenton. We fired a middle school principal after only a year, who was fired from his previous job after only two years? No, he's now a trainer of principals for the state... in Trenton.
All you need to do to get ahead in NJ educational politics is get booted from Montclair, it seems.
Having Montclair on your resume opens all kinds of doors, because of their political/PR image. However, get past the surface of the shiny apple and you find the worms.
They didn't mention in that article that they did not meet AYP from 2002-2005, for example. Nor did they mention the severe achievement gap between black male students and the rest of the student population. Nor did they mention the teachers arrested for embezzlement, or the students arrested for assault on school property, or the growing influence of gangs in the schools.
Nor do they mention the students whose parents send their kids to nearby private Montclair Kimberly Academy, because the best students are known to fall through the cracks in the public school." All of that is because of a corrupt school district, and has nothing to do with NCLB working or not, or any school program working or not. Corruption and mismanagement are terrible drains on school districts, bigger than any other single issue, again that is my opinion. No one can do much about it though because if you say anything people get very worked up that you are accusing teachers of not working hard which is an excellent way to deflect all critiscm. Granted it has nothing to do with what the actual problem is. Another issue I hear frequently is that teachers are not being paid enough which is not exactly like it seems to be and has been mentioned in this thread. Honestly, teachers are doing the job now, and for the most part, are doing their jobs very well. We really don't need to pay them more because they are doing their jobs now under awful conditions. Paying them more money will not solve anything except to cost taxpayers more money. Low teacher pay does not cause bad conditions in the classroom. What we really need to do is to clean up the awful leadership and financial blunders which will vastly improve the life of a teacher. By leadership, I really do not just mean Principals. I mean all the way up to, and certainly including, the school board and superintendent. FlyingCow provided a great example of incompentency being rewarded in leadership positions. If we clean up the leadership and vastly improve how money is spent, then we will have more money available to the people who truly need it, the classroom teacher. How many examples are there of a principal coming into a terrible school and turning it around? We need better management in our schools. Yes, I know this will not solve every problem but it will greatly improve our schools.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a lot of good comments here from fellow teachers. Thank you for your good information.
I would like to add a few comments.
First, no one has mentioned the idea that "if no child is left behind, how can any child get ahead?". Certainly, I read at least one comment where teachers are encouraged to ignore their more successful and motivated students and instead focus on bringing the less successful/motivated students up to speed.
Second, as a performing arts teacher, I see a HUGE disservice done to our students in the subjects that are not tested in NCLB. At my school, testing focuses on math and reading. Thus, the schedule was modified such that math and reading take up 45% of the curriculum time. The other half of the time is shared by electives, PE, history, and science. While I agree that reading and math are fundamental subjects that a student must master to be successful in other subjects, this kind of schedule change (which was inspired by a need to meet Annual Yearly Progress) comes at a great cost.
Music classtime was reduced to 60% of its pre-NCLB time. The home economics program was eliminated. (And people wonder why students move out and don't know how to cook anything except for frozen prepared dinners.) Students also have half of their former P/E and health time.
So, potentially, we end up with a nation of fat students who can read well, write a great five-paragraph essay (a format despised by many-a college professor, I might add), and be able to function reasonably well at math. Unfortunately, these students wouldn't be able to recognize a Monet painting or Mozart composition. They would think that the American Revolutionary War was fought over slavery and their understanding of science would go only as far as what Hollywood said is and is not possible.
The way NCLB has been implemented, it is NOT working. But the goal of trying to give every child an education is laudable.
When I teach my band class, I certainly try to leave no child left behind. If I have one or two students who squeak and squawk their way through an otherwise flawless performance, the work of the entire class is wasted. If Johnny P is screwing around in the back of the room, I have a vested interest in making him a functioning part of my classroom; when we go to perform in public, *I* am judged on how well each student performs. Whereas in a math class, Johnny P could be failing everything and it does not directly affect his classmates. No one but Johnny P, his parents and his teacher even need know that Johnny is failing!!
So how do I deal with Johnny in the bandroom? I can't halt the instruction of my hard-working and talented students to work with Johnny individually, particularly given that the majority of classtime is group activity time rather than individual work time. So, I arrange with Johnny to meet him during lunch or before school or after school to get him up to speed. I make a phone call home to his parents, asking that they remind Johnny to practice. Sometimes, I even tell the parents specifically what it is I assigned for Johnny to learn!
Do I get paid extra for the attention I give Johnny? No! So what do I get out of it?
There are a few things. First, I'm not embarrassed when Johnny (or the other five strugglers) mess up at a performance. Second, I see that Johnny has gained a sense of pride at seeing hard work pay off. Third, I get the personal satisfaction of helping a student succeed.
Unfortunately, there are a large number of teachers out there who are NOT motivated in any way to help struggling students, and NCLB does NOT facilitate this. As for solutions, I think that Shan's post above makes a great deal of sense, but I also think that teachers should be encouraged to expend extra time helping students, either through pay incentives or being held individually accountable for the success of their students. I am certainly held accountable by my music superintendent if students of mine are not performing at a given level.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly, teachers are doing the job now, and for the most part, are doing their jobs very well. We really don't need to pay them more because they are doing their jobs now under awful conditions. Paying them more money will not solve anything except to cost taxpayers more money. Low teacher pay does not cause bad conditions in the classroom.
Did you notice what I quoted about the huge percentage of teachers leaving the profession? And the vast majority say the low pay is a primary factor. Not to mention all the bright, motivated college students who won't even consider teaching as a career because of the low pay scale. We lost those before they even stepped into a classroom.
Consider this: My husband is a paramedic/firefighter, and when the fire department was facing a paramedic shortage, they offered incentive pay for people to go to school and get their paramedic license, and after they graduated they continued to offer them incentive pay to encourage them to keep up their qualifications. Imagine that - they needed people with more education so they made the job more attractive by paying more. Imagine this - it worked! We're facing a teacher shortage in this country, and instead of doing the logical thing, we've used NCLB to make getting your teaching certification MORE difficult and more expensive than ever and put stricter requirements on teachers and held them more accountable than ever before and haven't offered them any increase in pay. Gee, I wonder if that teaching shortage is going to get better soon?
I agree with you about top-heavy administration departments and the amount of money spent on them. I've been to our county board of education building and it's beautiful - expensive carpeting and furnishings and very comfortable in all seasons. Whereas my 3rd grader goes to school in a trailer building where the teacher has to choose whether to teach or run the window air conditioning unit. She can't do both, because the unit is so loud the kids can't hear her. But if she doesn't run it in the 90+ Alabama temperatures we get in early fall and late spring, the students are too miserable to concentrate.
I think as long as there are portable classrooms in the district, the superintendent of the schools should have to work out of a portable building himself. Or herself, in the case of our district.
But I disagree with you that paying teachers more won't help solve problems because I think it will indeed solve one of the biggest problems facing our educational system - how to get good, qualified, dedicated teachers in to our classrooms and keep them there.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for the double post, but this is something that makes me wonder:
quote:The home economics program was eliminated. (And people wonder why students move out and don't know how to cook anything except for frozen prepared dinners.) Students also have half of their former P/E and health time.
What is it we expect the schools to teach our children vs what we as a society expect their parents should teach them? I don't consider it the school's job to teach my daughters and son how to cook - that's my job as their mother. That's a basic life skill they need to learn before they leave my home, much like how to vacuum and how to wash dishes and how to do laundry, etc. I don't have a problem with home economics programs being cut because I don't think that's the school's job to teach those types of skills.
I do think health education and physical education has some value, but if my kids were overweight I wouldn't blame the school - it's my job to feed my children properly and encourage them to exercise.
Maybe I just look at things differently? Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think physical education has a lot of value. Even beyond the mental and physical benefits, I think for a lot of kids, Belle, that these days school may be the only place they have to physically play with other kids.
I also think learning how to play on team sports has a lot of value.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Did you notice what I quoted about the huge percentage of teachers leaving the profession? And the vast majority say the low pay is a primary factor. Not to mention all the bright, motivated college students who won't even consider teaching as a career because of the low pay scale. We lost those before they even stepped into a classroom.
NEA "A historic turnover is taking place in the teaching profession. While student enrollments are rising rapidly, more than a million veteran teachers are nearing retirement. Experts predict that overall we will need more than 2 million new teachers in the next decade. This teacher recruitment problem, which has reached crisis proportions in some areas, is most acute in urban and rural schools; for high-need subject areas such as special education, math and science, and for teachers of color. Teacher compensation is a significant deterrent to recruitment. Teachers are still paid less than professions that require comparable education and skills. Teachers still are not valued and respected to the extent of their actual contributions to society."
Now that seems to support your arguement, right? But let's see what else the article says
"But solving the teacher shortage is not strictly a numbers game. Much has been said about the need to bring more young people into the teaching profession. But too little attention has been paid to holding onto the quality teachers already hired—both the beginning teachers as well as the more seasoned ones.
The statistics for turnover among new teachers are startling. Some 20 percent of all new hires leave the classroom within three years. In urban districts, the numbers are worse—close to 50 percent of newcomers flee the profession during their first five years of teaching.
New teachers overwhelmed, don't get enough help Why do new teachers leave? They say they feel overwhelmed by the expectations and scope of the job. Many say they feel isolated and unsupported in their classrooms, or that expectations are unclear.
In education today, the first-year teacher is typically assigned to the same tasks, in and out of the classroom, as a long-time veteran. Quality mentoring programs for all first-year teachers are vitally important. Mentoring enables them to learn “best practices” from seasoned professionals, and research shows that new teachers who participate in induction programs are nearly twice as likely to stay in the profession as those who don't.
It is unacceptable for teachers to be assigned out-of-field. Such assignments are a disservice to students and teachers alike.
NEA believes all teacher retention efforts must begin with the recognition of the complexity of teaching. And that means we must give teachers the time they need to plan and confer with their colleagues. Provide them with the mentors and professional development they need. Reduce class size so they can devote more time to each student. To meet the growing demand for teachers, first we must do more to keep the good teachers we already have."
I think the last line is the most important... To meet the growing demand for teachers, first we must do more to keep the good teachers we already have This is from the NEA. Additionally, like I said, if leadership is improved first, there will be more money for the people who need it most, the classroom teacher. How will paying a teacher $10K more a year improve the conditions in a classroom if the leadership is not improved as well? [edited because I clicked too fast on my last line]
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Almost every teacher I know who has left teaching (including myself) has done so for two reasons: money and stress. Yes, reducing class sizes and otherwise improving classroom conditions is a must. But so is paying teachers more.
quote:Unfortunately, these students wouldn't be able to recognize a Monet painting or Mozart composition. They would think that the American Revolutionary War was fought over slavery and their understanding of science would go only as far as what Hollywood said is and is not possible.
And this is different from pre-NCLB how?
quote:Unfortunately, there are a large number of teachers out there who are NOT motivated in any way to help struggling students
posted
Why, Stormy? Women make up a larger percentage of teachers than men (right?), but I think the gap has narrowed quite a bit.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only 6 percent of teachers are African American, and 5 percent are Hispanic, Asian or come from other ethnic groups. Men represent barely a quarter of teachers, which the association says is the lowest level in four decades.
"We must face the fact that although our current teachers are the most educated and most experienced ever, there are still too many teachers leaving the profession too early, not enough people becoming teachers and not enough diversity in the profession," NEA President Reg Weaver said in a statement.
I just had a minute to read up, and I'm biting my tongue because I have a lot to do still before 6 pm.
Just wanted to add that my reasons for leaving teaching as a profession after four years (in three separate schools) were, in no particular order:
- needless time wasted on federal/state/town mandated paperwork and "training" that had little bearing on the classroom - little support from incompetent administrators - the bureaucracy of federal/state/local red tape, primarily that created by efforts to fulfill NCLB - working 60-80 hours per week in and outside of the classroom for roughly the same pay as I make now working 40 at a job I forget about at the end of each day.
I'll try to get on more later - so many people have said a lot of great things (especially DarkKnight's comments about mismanagement and corruption).
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, no, Rivka. I said 'leaving', not currently employed.
I see now that it's not clear from my response, but I understood that.
quote: Though, now that I think about it, the percentage employed does touch on that.
That was what I was trying to get at.
I also wondered why you thought there might be a significant gender gap in terms of rate of attrition.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
More stats that may shed light on the issue of male teachers and why they leave:
quote:Working conditions and low salaries are by far the primary reasons cited by individuals who do not plan to continue teaching until retirement. Twenty percent of teachers say unsatisfactory working conditions keep them from wanting to stay in the profession.i And 37 percent who do not plan to teach until retirement blame low pay for their decision to quit teaching.i The percentages are even greater for minority teachers (50%), for male teachers (43%), and for teachers under 30 (47%).
quote:Slow extinction of the male teacher. The percentage of male elementary teachers (9%) and male secondary teachers (35%) has fallen gradually since 1961 and now is at the lowest level in four decades.i More money, more male teachers. States with higher teacher salaries tend to have the most male teachers. Michigan ranks first in the percentage of male teachers (37%), and ranks in the top five nationally in teacher pay. Mississippi ranks 50th in the percentage of male teachers (18%), and ranks 49th in teacher pay.ii
posted
Rivka, a lot of reasons that I don't want to go into. Probably should have thought about that before bringing it up, I guess. :/
On another, related note, there was an excellent link posted on Ornery about women and mathematical education at the university level. It kind of touches on some of the stuff here and is food for thought....
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Almost every teacher I know who has left teaching (including myself) has done so for two reasons: money and stress. Yes, reducing class sizes and otherwise improving classroom conditions is a must. But so is paying teachers more.
quote:Unfortunately, these students wouldn't be able to recognize a Monet painting or Mozart composition. They would think that the American Revolutionary War was fought over slavery and their understanding of science would go only as far as what Hollywood said is and is not possible.
And this is different from pre-NCLB how?
quote:Unfortunately, there are a large number of teachers out there who are NOT motivated in any way to help struggling students
What tripe.
Rivka, the difference between pre NCLB and post NCLB is this. Before NCLB, administrators were more likely to support performing and creative arts classes than they are now. Now they are getting pressure from the act to cut back on the 'extras' to improve math and reading test scores. Nevermind that increased test scores do not necessarily mean that a student is actually better at math or reading.
My point is, if programs like NCLB continue, then it will be increasingly difficult to get teaching time or administrative support in subjects that are not tested in our state (like science, social studies, and the arts).
As for the second comment you isolated and referred to as tripe: I am curious why you think it is tripe.
Perhaps I did not clearly state my meaning. Certainly the majority of teachers are intrinsically motivated to help all of their students. Otherwise they would not be teachers. However, there is nothing in the education system in our country that encourages teachers to strive for high achievement from 100 percent of their students. The system itself does not encourage teachers to spend extra effort or 'go the extra mile' to help the four worst students in a given class. The only teachers who make the extra effort are already doing it.
What about those teachers who strictly follow their union-approved schedules? The ones who show up strictly at 7:30 then leave exactly at 3:30, staying not an extra minute, taking no work home, and teaching only the curriculum that their school requires? Unfortunately, my own school has a number of these teachers. A minority, to be sure, but extant nonetheless.
A number of these teachers are burnt out, simply put. They are working until they can retire and gain their pension. They are sick of doing all of the extra work for no additional pay. What's the point, they ask. I'll get paid more based on how many years I work for the district, or how many college credits I earned. And if Johnny fails, it's nothing off my back. He's not working hard enough. He's not a good enough student to be in my class.
What systems can be developed to a) find teachers who are willing to put the effort into teaching all students and b) reward teachers for this behavior, thereby increasing the frequency of the behavior? Merit-based pay? All-right. But how do you define a teacher's merit? Student grades? No, then you have grade inflation. Standardized test scores? This only encourages teaching to the test, and what about subjects for which there IS no test?
But perhaps I misinterpreted why you meant it was tripe. I certainly didn't mean to insult the vast majority of teachers in the world; people who chose teaching over other careers that would almost certainly have been more financially lucrative. People for whom the joy of seeing students succeed is worth far more to them than mere money.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also Rivka, you said you left because of high stress and low pay. I'm going to assume, given the intelligence you display on these boards, that you were an effective teacher. I'm assuming that you were able to reach out to struggling students and innovate ways to get them to succeed. I'm going to also assume that you received no pay raise for such successes. In fact, you probably got paid LESS than some other teachers who might be lazy, unmotivated, and uninterested in their students' achievement.
Forgetting for the moment that it is nearly impossible to objectively judge this, would it have made a difference to you if you were able to be paid according to how good of a teacher you were, rather than simply how long you taught?
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: So how do I deal with Johnny in the bandroom? ... So, I arrange with Johnny to meet him during lunch or before school or after school to get him up to speed. I make a phone call home to his parents, asking that they remind Johnny to practice. Sometimes, I even tell the parents specifically what it is I assigned for Johnny to learn! ...
So what happens when Johnny P tells you to shove it when you ask him to come in after school? What happens when Johnny's parents tell you that their son is your problem during the day, not theirs? What happens when Johnny's parents tell you they can't make him do anything? (All of these reactions have happened to the teachers I know) Should you be held accountable for his performance then?
I guess you could kick him out of the band for dragging down the group, but that's a luxury the 9th grade English or algebra teachers don't have.
That's my problem with the NCLB idea of holding teachers accountable. All the teachers I know try their hardest to teach kids, going so many extra miles it's ridiculous. But sometimes, the kids don't want to learn and their parents won't make them. Are we supposed to penalize teachers for that?
Posts: 36 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fractal Fraggle: That's my problem with the NCLB idea of holding teachers accountable. All the teachers I know try their hardest to teach kids, going so many extra miles it's ridiculous. But sometimes, the kids don't want to learn and their parents won't make them. Are we supposed to penalize teachers for that?
I totally agree with this. My husband even had some students whose parents preferred the kids failed. There was a female student whose parents believed she would be better spending her time finding a man to take care of her. It is politically easier to blame the teachers than the parents. I think a huge part of the problem is that it is so complex a problem. If your looking at special ed, you are looking at different issues than if you are looking at ap. Inner cities have different problems then rural. At some level, we want to make schools into businesses, measure productivity and so forth- put in x, get x widgets. But the complexity is just too great for that to work.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone know about the tests themselves? Teaching the test is only bad if the concepts covered on the test are irrelevant. It was my understanding that the tests covered the concepts needed to pass to the next grade.
My husband writes most of the math and social studies standardized tests for 4 states. He also writes for the ACT, GMAT, and GRE. I am very familiar with the process of how the tests are written. I also am familiar with standardized tests from my years with an online education company – we did some standardized test prep courses.
Each state has academic standards created by its Board of Education. They set forth how many years of each subject a student must take to get a diploma and what must be covered in each subject. Standardized tests are written by independent, for-profit companies. Each year, people from the testing companies (95% of which are former teachers, btw) meet with representatives from the Board of Ed to determine what needs to be covered in the tests, based on the academic standards of the state. The testing companies then provide those guidelines to their writers (like Andrew), who all have Ph.D.s and extensive training in test writing. As long as teachers are covering the material mandated by the state academic standards (which are usually pretty reasonable, if not a bit easy), the students should do reasonably well on the tests.
quote:First off, realize that not everyone is going to college. Everyone CAN'T go to college. There aren't enough spaces, to say nothing of the fact that someone is going to have to do the millions of tech and manufacturing jobs this country, despite popular opinion, still has. Push tech and trade schools. They are well paying jobs, and they need to be worked just as much as we need college grads.
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I think there should be tech diplomas in every high school (there are in many high school in Georgia). The students are required to know basics in the main 4 subjects, but they can major, for lack of a better word, in things like carpentry and automotive repair.
quote:I think as long as there are portable classrooms in the district, the superintendent of the schools should have to work out of a portable building himself.
posted
"Elizabeth, I work in a large school district where the majority of the student population are minorities. I'm also very active in another tiny mostly white school district."
Thank you for your explanation.
I work in a small, mostly white school district.
It is a close community, the teachers are excellent and have worked in the district for years rather than bailing for more money because it is such a nice place to work, but the free and reduced lunch population is not meeting AYP.
We are already discussing cutting into the Title One fund to pay for other services that NCLB says we must have due to being such a bad district.
Our money is not absorbed by administration, there is no overt misappropriation of funds, it is a nice place to be for students and teachers.
It just makes me sad, because we are not what the numbers say we are: failures.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My husband writes most of the math and social studies standardized tests for 4 states. He also writes for the ACT, GMAT, and GRE. I am very familiar with the process of how the tests are written. I also am familiar with standardized tests from my years with an online education company – we did some standardized test prep courses.
Each state has academic standards created by its Board of Education. They set forth how many years of each subject a student must take to get a diploma and what must be covered in each subject. Standardized tests are written by independent, for-profit companies. Each year, people from the testing companies (95% of which are former teachers, btw) meet with representatives from the Board of Ed to determine what needs to be covered in the tests, based on the academic standards of the state. The testing companies then provide those guidelines to their writers (like Andrew), who all have Ph.D.s and extensive training in test writing. As long as teachers are covering the material mandated by the state academic standards (which are usually pretty reasonable, if not a bit easy), the students should do reasonably well on the tests.
The problem is that I'm not sure that the state academic standards were designed to be used as exhaustive fodder for standardized tests.
My ex is a third grade teacher. Her class did a project on Heroes. Everyone picked a hero, and gave a report and did an oral report, written report, and some artwork. The kids picked which hero they'd profiled. One kid did his dad. The white kids either, on their own, picked Kennedy, Lincoln, or Washington and most of the other black and latino kids picked MLK. It's just how it worked out. For the most part, I think that this is a wonderful activity for third-graders.
I'm not sure that there is a standardized test that's adequate to capturing the importance of this class Unit, nor do I believe that the Board of Education standards articulate how important such units are such that the standardized test makers base their tests from these sorts of units.
Mrs.M,
Your husband is following his marching orders, and I'm sure he is very good at it, but it's possible that the Board of Ed. is following the wrong paradigm considering the prominent place these tests have taken in the curriculum.
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Forgetting for the moment that it is nearly impossible to objectively judge this, would it have made a difference to you if you were able to be paid according to how good of a teacher you were, rather than simply how long you taught?
I was. At least for the school I was teaching at, relatively speaking.
Yet another advantage to teaching private school rather than public.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: So how do I deal with Johnny in the bandroom? ... So, I arrange with Johnny to meet him during lunch or before school or after school to get him up to speed. I make a phone call home to his parents, asking that they remind Johnny to practice. Sometimes, I even tell the parents specifically what it is I assigned for Johnny to learn! ...
So what happens when Johnny P tells you to shove it when you ask him to come in after school? What happens when Johnny's parents tell you that their son is your problem during the day, not theirs? What happens when Johnny's parents tell you they can't make him do anything? (All of these reactions have happened to the teachers I know) Should you be held accountable for his performance then?
I guess you could kick him out of the band for dragging down the group, but that's a luxury the 9th grade English or algebra teachers don't have.
That's my problem with the NCLB idea of holding teachers accountable. All the teachers I know try their hardest to teach kids, going so many extra miles it's ridiculous. But sometimes, the kids don't want to learn and their parents won't make them. Are we supposed to penalize teachers for that?
You make an excellent point. I'm not a true advocate of the traditional merit-based pay, as you can see from some of my other questions regarding implementation. You bring up another question of implementation. Is there a way to reconcile the two options? On the one hand, we have a system where there is no extrinsic motivation for teachers to work harder. On the other, we have a system where teachers may be held responsible for things that are outside their sphere of influence, as in the cases you described.
I will readily admit that I lack the creativity and intelligence to come up with a workable solution, but I feel strongly that teachers do need to be held accountable. In my case, I'm held accountable by a district administrator who listens to my performances, occassionaly observes my teaching, and checks up with me regularly. This is different from the kind of observation my building principal does. THAT is simply inane comments and observations about whether my rules are clearly posted, etc. My supervisor is a highly trained educator in the music field with inhuman standards. He works with about200 teachers in my district. Admittedly, other teachers and I feel like he's breathing down our necks, but this pressure helps many of us to work harder than we otherwise would.
Of course, such a system could not be mandated federally, or even by states. The kind of close observation we receive would drive (has already driven) many teachers away from the district and the profession. But....it's a thought.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I haven't worked there in two years, but the way of improving scores for special education (in Glenfield and MHS) was to exclude students who already were failing from the special education programs, especially black male students. When the students who would bring down certain indicators were left in the general population, their low numbers were balanced out.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Though, now that I think about it, the percentage employed does touch on that.
