This week in the Baltimore Sun, there has been an interesting debate about the graduation rates in Baltimore and how they correlate with expectations and standards. Last week, there was an editorial (City's Graduation Rates: A success story still being written) about the city's rising graduation rates and the national praise for CEO Dr. Andres Alonso's efforts in Baltimore City Public Schools. Two days later, a letter came in (Baltimore raised graduation rate by lowering the bar) from Paul Evans, a 31 year retired teacher who taught at the high performing Western High School. Evans claimed that the reason Western and, presumably other schools, were seeing higher graduation rates was because North Avenue was refusing high numbers of failing students. According to Evans, when a list of 10+ failing seniors was submitted to North Ave, it was returned with a request to get the number lower. This happened for consecutive years until schools preemptively started lowering the bar, making exceptions or initiating emergency interventions for failing students.
This is a story that almost anyone who has taught in a Baltimore City school can easily believe. The chain of commands often ends with asking teachers to fudge grades, assemble make-up packets, offer extra credit projects or make other exceptions to enable students to pass. I've heard numerous anecdotes of principals asking teachers to change grades if they have too many failing students. Most teachers of integrity will refuse to do so, but it doesn't stop principals from changing grades themselves. Last year, I had 12 7th students who failed at least two core courses. As they predicted, they are all sitting pretty in 8th grade at this moment.
There are many problems with lowering the expectations and fudging grades. However, paramount is the one that Evans points to in his letter: students have caught on. Once students have gotten the message that they're not allowed to fail, it relieves them of all responsibility for their learning. At the end of the quarter, they have come to expect make-up packets. They ask for extra credit after 10 weeks of doing nothing. The work and study habits are abysmal. I remember having a conference with a student during 4th quarter last year. He had not done a lick of work in 2 weeks and my gradebook had a string of goose eggs. I told him if he kept this up, he would undoubtedly fail the grade. He looked at me and said, tauntingly, "Go ahead. I dare you to fail me. I will bet you a million dollars that I go to 8th grade anyway." Of course, he did fail and sure enough he is in an 8th grade uniform today.
In addition to this shift of responsibility, Evans brings up an even scarier point: sometimes, data does lie. If principals and teachers are being pressured - persuaded even - to fudge numbers, make exceptions, lie, and compromise their integrity for the sake of meeting quotas, then what will we learn from this data? What use is it to educators, policymakers or analysts? How can we even begin to make real changes, analyze problems and design systems for intervention if our entire system profile is based on lies?
In order to achieve true reform, Baltimore needs to take a sobering look at the real statistics, identify real problems and start thinking about solutions, rather than trying to sweep everything under an increasingly lower bar.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
What kind of relationship should public and parochial schools strive to foster with each other?
What kind of relationship should public and parochial schools strive to foster with each other? On March 17, the Baltimore Sun reported that officials at the Baltimore International Academy – a local charter school – were informed by the archdiocese of Baltimore that they could not purchase the vacant St. Anthony’s of Padua school. The charter school required more space after outgrowing its current facility on the campus of the Maryland School for the Blind. Last year, Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien closed thirteen schools in the hopes of placing the archdiocese’s remaining schools in a strong financial position. According to archdiocese spokesman Sean Caine, the archdiocese would not sell or lease the property to a charter school because it could weaken other local Catholic schools by attracting families who otherwise would send their children to a parochial school. (Baltimore Sun, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-03-21/news/bs-ed-catholic-charters-20110321_1_catholic-schools-charter-schools-baltimore-international-academy) This issue begs the question: what sort of a relationship should public and parochial schools strive to foster with each other? Other than the fact that religion informs the curriculum in parochial schools, both public and parochial schools share several of the same goals and, in many cases, serve the same demographic. It seems as though it would be very advantageous for public school leaders to reach out to their parochial school colleagues in an effort to establish some sort of a relationship and potentially share best practices. Education is a business. But every business is comprised of individuals. If these individuals would view each other as colleagues rather than “the competition” then the students in Baltimore, regardless of what school they attend, will reap the benefits.
The Value of Consistency
Lately, I have been thinking a lot about whether or not I should stay at the same school next year or explore new options. I was leaning towards moving on until listening to a panel of charter school teachers and administrators who brought up the value of consistency to the school and the students. If a school is going to truly improve is it important for teachers to stay to give stability and consistency to the kids? How much do the adults matter?
One reason why I think consistency could be important is the improvement I saw in my students behavior when I looped with them to the 8th grade. I didn't get a fresh start with a new group of kids, but the relationships I had built with students made the beginning of the school year fly by. I'm not sure if this would effect students whom I haven't taught, but there is something about knowing adults in the same environment for a period of time.
Another question I have been pondering is whether or not consistency in one classroom can make a difference for students and adults in other areas of the school. For example, I know I feel calm knowing there are adults who have been in the school for a long time to help me if I need it. Just having them there and listening to stories about the school in the past makes me feel like part of a team, motivated to improve the school.
The question that I am left with is: Will staying at my school for a third year ultimately impact my students and their academic success? I don't know how to begin to measure this, but it is a question worth exploring.
One reason why I think consistency could be important is the improvement I saw in my students behavior when I looped with them to the 8th grade. I didn't get a fresh start with a new group of kids, but the relationships I had built with students made the beginning of the school year fly by. I'm not sure if this would effect students whom I haven't taught, but there is something about knowing adults in the same environment for a period of time.
Another question I have been pondering is whether or not consistency in one classroom can make a difference for students and adults in other areas of the school. For example, I know I feel calm knowing there are adults who have been in the school for a long time to help me if I need it. Just having them there and listening to stories about the school in the past makes me feel like part of a team, motivated to improve the school.
The question that I am left with is: Will staying at my school for a third year ultimately impact my students and their academic success? I don't know how to begin to measure this, but it is a question worth exploring.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Private Lives
Private Lives
In a world where almost anything we want to know is a mouse click away, are those who serve the public entitled to down time? Already we have everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, telling us how to do our jobs of educating children based on personal experiences and “common sense.” As educators we are in a position of power of so many, mainly the children we work with on a daily basis. I am personally afraid to express any real opinions about non-academic topics in my classroom for fear of influencing, or being perceived as influencing, my students one way or the other.
Recent events in the media regarding teacher behavior make me afraid to even post to this academic blog. A teacher in Arizona is fired for refusing to remove a bumper sticker, one of more than sixty that adorned her vehicle. Another is suspended for venting on a private blog about how her students where being lazy by not doing the assigned work. While neither case is black – and – white as far as appropriateness of the circumstances, those we serve need to remember that we are also human. We’ve been encouraged to delete our Facebook and Twitter profiles, avoid public forums, and basically always be the modest school marm of years past.
At what point does it become inappropriate for my students to search for my information? They know where I live because the sale of my house is public record. They know how many traffic tickets I have because that information can be bought. They have found what sorority I am a member of, what awards I won in college, and what I post on Facebook before it became as locked as it currently is. When will we all be punished for saying something or posting something that the wrong person sees? When will we be giving up the right to be something besides a teacher?
Labor Unions for Professionals
Labor Unions for Professionals
There are a lot of younger, new teachers who are NOT part of the BTU, which is apparently causing some concern for the organization. While I am personally not a fan of unions, I wonder why we have a union exactly in this day and age. But that is not the point I wish to make. Instead I will be focusing on the idea of our desire to be treated as white collar professionals while still adhering to a blue collar labor union’s guidelines. If unions have historically been for those persons employed in a physical labor profession, why are there teachers unions? By many we are considered glorified babysitters and others we are the keys to the future. Either way we are seen, we frequently want to be considered in a professional capacity. After all, those of us in these alternative certification programs all went to college and did well in a field outside of education. We excel at traits, such as communication and inner strength and perseverance that have been proven as character traits of successful educators in urban and rural environments. Had we chosen another path after college we would have been negotiating our own salaries and benefits with the Human Resources staff in a “professional” environment – whether that be business, industry, academia, etc. Those personal would have worked with our managers/supervisors to place us appropriately in an allowed range of pay and benefits. We would have been competing in a business model for our jobs and our returns on those jobs. Our job security would have only been as strong as our performance and progress. Instead we chose for whatever personal reasons we all have to enter the classroom in Baltimore City. We still have those same in demand character traits and high quality education, but instead of acting as the professionals we would have been outside the classroom, we hold ourselves back by being considered a labor commodity.
I know I am not a laborer, but a professional. Someday I will be represented as such.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Mediocrity in Education
“Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world… the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”
This excerpt is from the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, but more than a quarter-century later, the words ring relevant and true as ever as we continue to tolerate, even encourage, mediocrity in educational performance throughout the nation.
In 2002, the Bush administration passed the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, which aimed to close the achievement gap by raising every child to 100 percent proficiency by the year 2014. NCLB is the most ambitious federal education legislation in U.S. history, but heavily criticized for being under-funded and ineffectively implemented. Under the new mandates, every public school in the nation is responsible for meeting annual proficiency targets called Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The most significant flaws of NCLB are that proficiency goals are set at the discretion of states and AYP is determined solely on whether or not a school’s absolute scores reach the required achievement benchmark. Thus, states have incentive to lower the proficiency thresholds and make tests easier so that more students will meet the requisite proficiency levels. This inadvertently creates a perverse “race to the bottom,” which achieves the exact opposite of the goals of NCLB.
The Nation’s Report Card has boasted gains in achievement since the inception of NCLB, but the so-called progress is marginal at best. The reports fail to highlight the fact that a cringe-worthy majority of students still score below proficiency after more than eight years under the new legislation – mostly the poor and minority students for whom NCLB seeks to raise achievement. The National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) is currently the only national standardized test that allows for achievement comparisons between states.
Consider the 8th grade Reading scores as a demonstration of the startling lack of literacy progress our students have made in the past 18 years. NAEP classifies the 8th grade reading averages as “significantly different” in 2009 than 1992. On a 0-500 scale, this “significant” difference is between a 260 average in 1992 and a 264 average in 2009. However, this is an apples and oranges comparison to some extent, because testing accommodations were not permitted until 1998. Not surprisingly, the most significant increase in reading averages occurred between 1994 and 1998 – the first year accommodations were permitted – when the averages jumped from 260-264. During the past 11 years, scores dipped to 262 in 2005 and then rose back to 264 in 2009. Effectively, there has been no positive change for 8th grade reading averages since the onset of NCLB in 2002.
When the scores are disaggregated by percentile range, the results are even more shockingly stagnant since 2002. In the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles, 2009 scores are all equal to the 2002 averages. In the 10th and 25th percentiles, scores are one point lower in 2009 than they were in 2002 after recovering from a dip in 2005.
According to the 2009 results, not a single state or province has reached even 50% proficiency in reading among eighth graders. Connecticut comes closest with 43% at proficient (38%) or advanced (5%) and New Jersey and Massachusetts are close behind with 42% at proficient (37%) or advanced (5%) in each state. Our nation’s capitol ranks lowest with a shameful 12% proficient and 1% advanced. On average, only one third of eighth graders are proficient readers. A statistic with such staggering propensity for economic and social consequences should launch the nation into a flurry of radical reform, but the executive summary headline dispassionately reads, “Reading scores up since 2007 at grade 8 and unchanged at grade 4.”
NCLB’s primary goal is to close the achievement gap that exists along race and class lines. Schools must now disaggregate data for subgroups of students so that low-performing students cannot be masked by averages. NCLB supporters claim that the law has been successful on this account, but close reading of the NAEP report reveals that white students continue to score 20-30 points higher in math and reading. This is the difference between “basic” and “advanced” skills. The discrepancy is equally stark between students who are eligible for free lunch and those who are not. We are still severely failing poor and minority students more than halfway to the 2014 goal.
Aside from the domestic implications of this mediocre performance, the United States falls significantly behind other industrialized nations in math and science. In the 2007 “Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study” (TIMSS), U.S. eighth graders ranked ninth in math and eleventh in science, falling behind China, Hong-Kong, Korea, Singapore, Japan, Russia and England, among others. Our poor performance is especially embarrassing when you consider that we spend more money on education – both in terms of total dollars and per student - than most of these countries combined, with a roughly $500 billion annual education budget. This indicates a severe misallocation of resources in terms of learning outcomes.
Our education system is plagued by mediocrity. As a nation we have collectively ceased to value education as a top priority, indicated by pitifully poor performance, woeful teacher retention and sub-par graduation rates. Aside from being ineffectual, NCLB is also uninspiring in terms of pursuing excellence in education. In more than 600 pages of legislative verbiage, words like “adequacy,” “proficiency,” and “minimum” appear hundreds of time. The world “excellence,” however, is mentioned less than ten times – mostly in the context of ambiguous titles rather than goals or specific recommendations.
Adequacy is not a worthy goal for the future leaders of the world. There is a culture of sufficiency in schools that threatens the prosperity of our nation. In the wake of NCLB, the knee-jerk response in most states was to lower standards to meet achievement levels rather than accepting the challenge to raise achievement to meet tough standards. Our education system fails to encourage life-long learning or the pursuit of academic excellence. Instead, the focus is on checklists of low level thinking standards that are assessed by multiple-choice questions. These skills will not suffice for solving complex global problems like poverty, water shortages, clean energy alternatives, and civil war. If we do not start setting expectations of excellence for our nation’s students, they have no chance of meeting them and they will flounder in the global economy of the 21st century.
The 1983 report prophecies: “History is not kind to idlers… We live among determined, well-educated, and strongly motivated competitors. We compete with them for international standing and markets, not only with products but also with the ideas of our laboratories and neighborhood workshops… Learning is the indispensable investment required for success in the "information age" we are entering.” The tide of mediocrity continues to swell.
Sources:
A Nation At Risk: http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
Nation's Report Card: The Nation's Report Card - National Assessment of Educational Progress - NAEP
This excerpt is from the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, but more than a quarter-century later, the words ring relevant and true as ever as we continue to tolerate, even encourage, mediocrity in educational performance throughout the nation.
In 2002, the Bush administration passed the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, which aimed to close the achievement gap by raising every child to 100 percent proficiency by the year 2014. NCLB is the most ambitious federal education legislation in U.S. history, but heavily criticized for being under-funded and ineffectively implemented. Under the new mandates, every public school in the nation is responsible for meeting annual proficiency targets called Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The most significant flaws of NCLB are that proficiency goals are set at the discretion of states and AYP is determined solely on whether or not a school’s absolute scores reach the required achievement benchmark. Thus, states have incentive to lower the proficiency thresholds and make tests easier so that more students will meet the requisite proficiency levels. This inadvertently creates a perverse “race to the bottom,” which achieves the exact opposite of the goals of NCLB.
The Nation’s Report Card has boasted gains in achievement since the inception of NCLB, but the so-called progress is marginal at best. The reports fail to highlight the fact that a cringe-worthy majority of students still score below proficiency after more than eight years under the new legislation – mostly the poor and minority students for whom NCLB seeks to raise achievement. The National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) is currently the only national standardized test that allows for achievement comparisons between states.
Consider the 8th grade Reading scores as a demonstration of the startling lack of literacy progress our students have made in the past 18 years. NAEP classifies the 8th grade reading averages as “significantly different” in 2009 than 1992. On a 0-500 scale, this “significant” difference is between a 260 average in 1992 and a 264 average in 2009. However, this is an apples and oranges comparison to some extent, because testing accommodations were not permitted until 1998. Not surprisingly, the most significant increase in reading averages occurred between 1994 and 1998 – the first year accommodations were permitted – when the averages jumped from 260-264. During the past 11 years, scores dipped to 262 in 2005 and then rose back to 264 in 2009. Effectively, there has been no positive change for 8th grade reading averages since the onset of NCLB in 2002.
When the scores are disaggregated by percentile range, the results are even more shockingly stagnant since 2002. In the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles, 2009 scores are all equal to the 2002 averages. In the 10th and 25th percentiles, scores are one point lower in 2009 than they were in 2002 after recovering from a dip in 2005.
According to the 2009 results, not a single state or province has reached even 50% proficiency in reading among eighth graders. Connecticut comes closest with 43% at proficient (38%) or advanced (5%) and New Jersey and Massachusetts are close behind with 42% at proficient (37%) or advanced (5%) in each state. Our nation’s capitol ranks lowest with a shameful 12% proficient and 1% advanced. On average, only one third of eighth graders are proficient readers. A statistic with such staggering propensity for economic and social consequences should launch the nation into a flurry of radical reform, but the executive summary headline dispassionately reads, “Reading scores up since 2007 at grade 8 and unchanged at grade 4.”
NCLB’s primary goal is to close the achievement gap that exists along race and class lines. Schools must now disaggregate data for subgroups of students so that low-performing students cannot be masked by averages. NCLB supporters claim that the law has been successful on this account, but close reading of the NAEP report reveals that white students continue to score 20-30 points higher in math and reading. This is the difference between “basic” and “advanced” skills. The discrepancy is equally stark between students who are eligible for free lunch and those who are not. We are still severely failing poor and minority students more than halfway to the 2014 goal.
Aside from the domestic implications of this mediocre performance, the United States falls significantly behind other industrialized nations in math and science. In the 2007 “Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study” (TIMSS), U.S. eighth graders ranked ninth in math and eleventh in science, falling behind China, Hong-Kong, Korea, Singapore, Japan, Russia and England, among others. Our poor performance is especially embarrassing when you consider that we spend more money on education – both in terms of total dollars and per student - than most of these countries combined, with a roughly $500 billion annual education budget. This indicates a severe misallocation of resources in terms of learning outcomes.
Our education system is plagued by mediocrity. As a nation we have collectively ceased to value education as a top priority, indicated by pitifully poor performance, woeful teacher retention and sub-par graduation rates. Aside from being ineffectual, NCLB is also uninspiring in terms of pursuing excellence in education. In more than 600 pages of legislative verbiage, words like “adequacy,” “proficiency,” and “minimum” appear hundreds of time. The world “excellence,” however, is mentioned less than ten times – mostly in the context of ambiguous titles rather than goals or specific recommendations.
Adequacy is not a worthy goal for the future leaders of the world. There is a culture of sufficiency in schools that threatens the prosperity of our nation. In the wake of NCLB, the knee-jerk response in most states was to lower standards to meet achievement levels rather than accepting the challenge to raise achievement to meet tough standards. Our education system fails to encourage life-long learning or the pursuit of academic excellence. Instead, the focus is on checklists of low level thinking standards that are assessed by multiple-choice questions. These skills will not suffice for solving complex global problems like poverty, water shortages, clean energy alternatives, and civil war. If we do not start setting expectations of excellence for our nation’s students, they have no chance of meeting them and they will flounder in the global economy of the 21st century.
The 1983 report prophecies: “History is not kind to idlers… We live among determined, well-educated, and strongly motivated competitors. We compete with them for international standing and markets, not only with products but also with the ideas of our laboratories and neighborhood workshops… Learning is the indispensable investment required for success in the "information age" we are entering.” The tide of mediocrity continues to swell.
Sources:
A Nation At Risk: http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
Nation's Report Card: The Nation's Report Card - National Assessment of Educational Progress - NAEP
Saturday, March 26, 2011
State Board Considers Regulation on Student Discipline
This article by Liz Bowie of the Baltimore Sun discusses a regulation on suspensions in public schools, which was proposed by the state board. This action follows the recent suicide of a student in Virginia who was out on a long suspension. While they do not believe the suspension is the cause of the suicide, they do believe students are out of school for too much time when suspended. The regulation would limit the amount of time a student is out of school, while appealing a suspension or an expulsion. The school districts would like the discipline policy to be left up to them rather than have the state regulate the policies.
Being a Baltimore City teacher I do not agree that discipline policies should be regulated. In the City we have alternative schools that students attend while on long-term suspension or expulsion. I believe there is a need for long-term suspension and expulsion for certain offenses that endanger the safety of students and teachers. I also believe it is a great that the City is able to have alternative schools while children are out on long-term suspension or expulsion. When a student is issued a long-term suspension there is usually a reason and that student should not be allowed back until their suspension is over, or their appeal is complete. If the time out of school is regulated everyone will appeal their suspension so the can return to school earlier. In most cases the students should not be able to return until their suspension is complete.
Source: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-student-discipline-20110322,0,6500829.story
Friday, March 25, 2011
Facebook Fights, MySpace Brawls
According to the 2009 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report, one third of teens report being bullied while at school. Bullying is a critical issue that has potentially detrimental effects on young people. The effects of being bullied are associated with youth developing depression and anxiety, and can even lead to suicide. In many cases, it already has.
In today’s society, bullying has evolved to adapt to the increasingly technological landscape. This is evident in bullying’s most recent form, cyberbullying. Cyberbullying involves using technology to bully or harass another individual by sending threatening, harassing, and/or hurtful pictures or messages. Both traditional bullying and cyberbullying are becoming increasingly prevalent amongst school-aged children. According to bullyingstatistics.org, more than 1 in 3 students have received cyberthreats online. More than 25% of students have been bullied repeatedly through texts or online. The majority of teachers have likely had some experience mediating conflicts between students that were ignited via popular social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.
In light of recent reports of two students suffering from suicidal thoughts after being repeatedly bullied at Gilmor Elementary school, Chief Executive Officer Dr. Alonso of Baltimore City Public Schools released the following statements: "We have 83,000 kids, and any instance (of bullying) is unacceptable because my goal has been to have 83,000 kids graduate from high school. I don't believe that any single child can be sacrificed." Like Dr. Alonso, I agree that each incidence of bullying is hindering our students’ education and is dampening to their self-esteem. Families, schools, and communities should work in cohesion to address this issue, educate our children about its effects, and develop a solution.
Sources:
http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Pay Teachers More
Two weeks ago Nicholas Kristof wrote a NEW York Times article about teacher salaries. Kristof argues that teachers do not get paid enough. The article followed public criticism of teachers by several governors. Kristof stated that instead of mocking and demeaning teachers they should pay us more. Good teachers are the most important asset in the classroom and raising student achievement. Kristof sites a study in Los Angeles that found that having a teacher from the top 25 percent for four consecutive years would be enough to close the black-white achievement gap. The effect a teacher has on their students is tremendous and if we want that effect to be positive we need to have the best possible people in the classroom. Kristof argues that in order to have the best people in the classroom salaries for teachers need to be more competitive to other professions, and therefore the need to be higher.
If teachers’ salaries were increased the profession would attract the top college graduates and compete with other professions. In other successful countries like Singapore, South Korea, and Finland, teachers are well respected and compensated. If we want the best teachers to prepare our students to be the best citizens possible we must increase teacher salaries to attract the best possible people to the profession.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Pay%20Teachers%20More&st=cse
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Single Sex Education-does it really increase student achievement, or is does it just further segregate our students?
Single sex schools and classrooms are a growing trend in education. In 2002, approximately a dozen public schools across the nation offered single sex education and now in 2011, there are over 500 schools that offer this type of innovative education. In Maryland alone, there are 10 public schools that offer some form of single sex education.
The two major arguments in favor of single sex education are centered on differing learning styles between genders and minimizing distractions in the classroom. Opponents of this type of education argue that it further segregates students and goes against feminist views.
Personally, I would rather have students interact with others that are different from themselves including those of opposite genders. I think it’s important for students to learn how to interact with the opposite sex especially if our goal is to prepare them for a co-ed world. I do think for some subjects, such as health education, it is beneficial for students to be separated by sex, but on the whole I think separating the students by gender will only further the gender stereotypes that exist.
What do you think? Do any of you teach at single sex schools? What are the pros and cons that you see?
The two major arguments in favor of single sex education are centered on differing learning styles between genders and minimizing distractions in the classroom. Opponents of this type of education argue that it further segregates students and goes against feminist views.
Personally, I would rather have students interact with others that are different from themselves including those of opposite genders. I think it’s important for students to learn how to interact with the opposite sex especially if our goal is to prepare them for a co-ed world. I do think for some subjects, such as health education, it is beneficial for students to be separated by sex, but on the whole I think separating the students by gender will only further the gender stereotypes that exist.
What do you think? Do any of you teach at single sex schools? What are the pros and cons that you see?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Teaching to the Text (Message)
As a middle school English teacher, I wonder if I should give more assignments that encourage students to complete shorter tasks that are relevant to them. On the other hand, students need to learn how to read and write in order to be successful in high school and college. When schools develop curricula for different subjects, should they take this into account or should they continue using traditional methods and assignments? My students have little interaction with the internet, so when should they learn how to type and use email? Should these skills be favored over writing longer assignments?
These questions make me wonder what we value in education, specifically in English. Which skills will most benefit our students in their future careers?
Where Should the Money be Spent?
I stumbled upon a study from January of this year that examined more than 9,000 school districts and their spending. The U.S. tops the list of countries based on the amount of money spent per student, yet our test scores do not indicate that our students are competitive. The study suggested (among other things) that HOW money is spent is more important than HOW MUCH money is spent. We saw in class that although the amount of money being spent per pupil is increasing every year, their scores are staying stable. So it is safe to say that “efficiency” in spending, as this study calls it, is the most important factor when discussing high returns on educational investments.
Well, thats easy to understand -- but the question is, what is the best way to spend “efficiently”? The Baltimore Sun recently reported that Baltimore County is spending more money on upper-level administration than most other counties in Maryland. Renee Foose, the new deputy superintendent, will take home $214,000 this year. The county’s teachers and mid-level administrative salaries are ranked far lower. Is this the best way to spend money on education? Baltimore County is a notoriously high-performing county in MD, and perhaps focusing rewarding those in upper-level positions pays off. I would be interested to sift through more data on this issue and see if there is some sort of connection, or if Baltimore County is, in fact, unwisely spending its money.
Sources http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/educational_productivity/report.html
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/education/blog/2011/03/baltimore_county_administratio.html
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
High School Graduation Tests: Solution or Problem?
By 2012, almost three-quarters of the nation's public school students in 26 states will have to pass a high school graduation test. The Center on Education Policy believes that exit exams have a significant impact on a student's education. States are leaning toward implementing end-of-course exams, which I assume would be standardized in order to maintain a consistent amount of rigor. By 2015, 11 states will include end-of-course assessments, including Maryland. Schools are moving away from exams that assess below the high school level. The overall idea is that teachers will be more likely to teach to a higher level. Another solution to the bad teacher problem.
I don't completely disagree with end-of-course assessments. Coming from the Massachusetts's public school system, I didn't have to take any myself, but I trusted that my teachers were doing a good job. I see the purpose and value in these changes, but I also foresee many challenges. As a teacher in a school that services over-aged and under-credited students, I witness daily the struggle of convincing a student that they should come to school at least three days out of the week, pushing a student to take notes even though they can't read the words that they are copying, writing notes to students' bosses asking them to cut their hours during the school day, sending home work when a student's child is sick, and transitioning a student back from being incarcerated.
There are many things holding a child back who is raised in poverty. I would never lower my expectations, but I am also realistic. Many of these students have made it to high school, some even to senior year, without reading or writing well. How long do I hold them back? Until they age out? When a student is almost 21, do you tell them that because they can't pass the high school test they will have to take the GED? Will we force more students to become drop-outs?
I witness students making up credits with "online" classes that are a joke. The teachers help them submit work. I watch students that I failed take my courses online, and I can't believe that my credit and that credit are worth the same. Clearly we are trying to give students diplomas, raise the graduation rate, and open up some opportunities. Until we figure out the problem of dealing with poverty and education before a student gets to high school, though, I think it's a hard bargain to push for a graduation test. It's not a student's fault if they had some bad teachers in their childhood. It's not even their fault if they missed a lot of school. They may make amazing gains in high school but that may not make up for the serious lack of gains they experienced in elementary and middle schools. To be honest, I don't know where I stand on this issue because I see so many problems with simply trying to raise graduation rates without assessments, but I also see why the push is enticing. Perhaps we should take a step back and ruminate on this a bit.
Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thehomeroom/2008/08/high-school-exi.html
Parental Involvement-How do we get them to come?
If you ask most teachers how many parents show up for things like Back to School Night and Parent/Teacher Conferences, very few will give you a double digit answer. The largest number of parents I have had on a parent conference day was five and that was with a roster of over 80 students. My school, however, has started a new conference system and we had almost 80% parent attendance the first time! The new concept is called a Student Led Conference (SLC). SLCs are designed for students to be the ones telling their parents about their progress thus far in school. Two school days were set aside and teachers were responsible for scheduling the conferences to meet the needs of the parents’ work schedules, sometimes staying as late as 8:00pm for a conference. During the conference, the student, one teacher and the students’ family meets in a room for approximately thirty minutes. The student will walk the family through his/her four classes, explaining how he/she is doing in each and why. The parent has time to ask the student questions about their academics and about the student’s work samples. The very first SLC we had over 200 parents and family members show up, which was well over five times the attendance at any other school event.
Are there other programs at different schools that are successful in providing parental involvement? I would argue that these types of programs not only get parents involved in their students’ education, but they hold students more accountable for their own education as well.
Are there other programs at different schools that are successful in providing parental involvement? I would argue that these types of programs not only get parents involved in their students’ education, but they hold students more accountable for their own education as well.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Charter Schools-The Equalizer or the Equilavent?
In the wake of groundbreaking education reform and popular documentaries such as Waiting for Superman, the state of the education gap and the nation’s failing educational system has never been more at the forefront. For many, the answer to failing school districts is the idea of school choice via charter schools. Charter schools, essentially, are privately-operated schools that are funded by public dollars. The persons running the charter schools have full autonomy in governing the schools, but still have to teach to the requirements laid out by the state and/or city. Charter schools have seen success in some areas, but they are still are a relatively new phenomenon. The biggest success stories have been seen in charter schools that have had students from one community and can service that whole community, such as the success being seen in Harlem with the Harlem Children’s Zone.
Baltimore is a city that has employed its fair share of education reform, and currently about 10% of its students are enrolled in charter schools. The question has been whether or not charter schools are an effective solution, as traditionally they do not always make the major gains that many think they do. According to the Baltimore Sun, charter schools demonstrated a 5-percentage point lead in students demonstrating proficiency in reading and math when compared with traditional public schools for the 2009-2010 school year. While the gains are not significant, Chief Executive Officer Andres Alonso remains a major proponent of charter schools, saying that the increase is a sign that the district is moving forward. He suggests that both charter schools and traditional public schools are doing their jobs.
She works hard for the money
In his most recent column for the New York Times, Nikolas Kristof came out as a disappointingly lonely voice in the latest debate around teacher compensation: we should be paid more, not less. As political battles in Wisconsin and other states take on public employees as the roots of all financial problems, teachers have been characterized by some as lazy, part-time employees who don't deserve the inflated benefits and union rights they've been afforded.
Kristof argues that "...the bottom line is that we should pay teachers more, not less — and that politicians who falsely lambaste teachers as greedy are simply making it more difficult to attract the kind of above-average teachers our above-average children deserve."
The reader comments on his blog about the column take both sides of the argument. Some readers enthusiastically support his call to raise the professional regard for the teaching profession, with a salary to match. Others argue that increased salaries won't have much impact on the quality of individuals attracted to teaching, nor will it increase the caliber of teachers already in the classroom.
Separate from the union issue, I think, is the fundamental question of whether quality work is motivated by external or internal factors. Kristof quotes a study that shows the pay gap in New York between a teacher and laywer is over $115,000. While it's nice to say teachers are all bleeding hearts who do their jobs out of a calling to a higher moral order, our society makes a strong connection between power and money. I think it's no coincidence that we've become a highly litigious society; it's financially lucrative for lawyers to find reason to file a lawsuit. I can't help but wonder what would happen those same financial indicators pointed to well-educated citizens, rather than the generation living in the "If you have a phone, you have a lawyer" mentality.
Kristof argues that "...the bottom line is that we should pay teachers more, not less — and that politicians who falsely lambaste teachers as greedy are simply making it more difficult to attract the kind of above-average teachers our above-average children deserve."
The reader comments on his blog about the column take both sides of the argument. Some readers enthusiastically support his call to raise the professional regard for the teaching profession, with a salary to match. Others argue that increased salaries won't have much impact on the quality of individuals attracted to teaching, nor will it increase the caliber of teachers already in the classroom.
Separate from the union issue, I think, is the fundamental question of whether quality work is motivated by external or internal factors. Kristof quotes a study that shows the pay gap in New York between a teacher and laywer is over $115,000. While it's nice to say teachers are all bleeding hearts who do their jobs out of a calling to a higher moral order, our society makes a strong connection between power and money. I think it's no coincidence that we've become a highly litigious society; it's financially lucrative for lawyers to find reason to file a lawsuit. I can't help but wonder what would happen those same financial indicators pointed to well-educated citizens, rather than the generation living in the "If you have a phone, you have a lawyer" mentality.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Increasing Class Sizes: What People Outside the Classroom Don't See
This week Baltimore County Executive Keven Kamentz suggested shifting fourth- and fifth-graders to middle schools in order to solve the problem of overcrowded elementary schools. Across the country schools are suffering from increased class sizes due to budget problems despite the research that shows smaller class sizes promote higher achievement. However, across the country districts have been appealing penalties placed on schools for exceeding class sizes that have resulted in violations of the law.
Those who aren’t in the classroom don’t realize the added responsibilities of teaching more students aside from the issue of classroom management. As a teacher with rosters that reach almost sixty students per class, I understand those frustrations. No matter how many students sit in front a teacher every day, the teacher must deal with extra pressures. These include grading extra papers, providing more makeup work for the higher amount of absent students, contacting more parents, documenting more behaviors and academic data (especially if there is a higher population of special education students in the classroom), among other responsibilities. For teachers with “copy limits” or small classrooms, the increased sizes can add extra stress that is completely unnecessary and ultimately distracting from the teacher’s critical role: teaching.
In addition to a public misconception about the duties of a teacher when class sizes increase, it seems that our leaders are not in touch with the real numbers. Last Sunday Arne Duncan spoke with governors in Washington and asked them to consider paying bonuses to the schools’ best teachers for taking on extra students. Mr. Duncan stated that he would prefer to put his own children in a classroom with 28 students led by a “fantastic” teacher than in one with 23 and a “mediocre” teacher. Mr. Duncan, 28 students has become more of a norm for teachers in low-performing schools. When you look at the average class sizes of students in a city, you are including all schools, not just those schools serving low-achieving students, which are the schools that would benefit most from small sizes.
Sources: http://www.wbaltv.com/education/27141722/detail.html;
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/education/07classrooms.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=education
Relationships Between Charter Schools And Unions May Suffer Due To Struggles Between AFT and KIPP
Earlier this month, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, criticized the KIPP schools in Baltimore for their alleged unwillingness to work with the union to reach an agreement concerning the temporary deal made last year. KIPP is seeking a ten-year extension of its one-year agreement with the BTU. Under that deal, it can afford to keep its 9 1/2 hour school days because its teachers are paid 20.5 percent extra for the extended day, much less than under the current union contract.
Weingarten expressed frustration that “KIPP is playing by its own set of rules”. She stated that KIPP has been eager to run to the press and criticize the union or try to change Maryland’s state law that requires teachers at charter schools to be represented by unions, instead of working with the union for an agreement that would benefit everyone involved. KIPP Baltimore’s executive director Jason Botel responded that KIPP schools in the city would have to close if they were forced to comply with the unions’ rules, and that he hoped they could reach an agreement soon.
Reading the article, interesting issues are raised between charter schools and unions. Should KIPP be able to “opt out” of union rules by changing the state law? And if so, would this result in a sort of landslide effect in which dozens of other charters would be tempted to do the same? Should teachers trade off their union rights in exchange for working at higher-performing schools, or should they be “forced” to follow the same rules as other teachers, even when they don’t want to? Either way, the tensions resulting from these public altercations is, as the author notes, a blow to the budding relationships between teachers unions and the charter school movement, “one of the most robust developments in American education.”
Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2011/03/randi_weingarten_scolds_kipp.html
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Teacher Effectiveness Drives Student Performance: How Do We Evaluate Our Teachers?
Teacher effectiveness is often thought of as the most important factor in student growth. This means that the teacher himself or herself is stronger than income, class size, race or family educational background. The million dollar question is, how do we define an “effective teacher?” Cities have struggled to find an effective system for evaluating teachers. Last year the National Center on Teacher Quality did a report on teacher evaluation and Human Capital in Baltimore City. Only half of the City Schools teachers were evaluated. Of this 50%, 97% were rated Satisfactory or higher which is two percent lower than the national average. This means that Baltimore City is becoming more progressive in teacher evaluation.
Certain programs such as the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) measures teaching against standards in three major categories, designing and planning instruction, the learning environment and instruction. TAP evaluates a teacher rigorously and provides information on what a teacher is doing well, struggles with and gives them feedback. Another system implemented in Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System where school systems follow and track student test scores between 4th and 8th grade in math, reading, social studies and science. Each student has a profile and their performance can be projected. Both of these systems contribute towards greater student performance. I tend believe that a system such as TAP is more effective. TAP is a way where teachers are not observed once a year and given a general unsatisfactory, satisfactory or proficient score. TAP consists of a rigorous method for evaluating teachers based on three important factors, designing and planning instruction, the learning environment and instruction. What do you think are the most important factors in evaluating teachers? Which system do you feel would be more effective in Baltimore City?
Certain programs such as the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) measures teaching against standards in three major categories, designing and planning instruction, the learning environment and instruction. TAP evaluates a teacher rigorously and provides information on what a teacher is doing well, struggles with and gives them feedback. Another system implemented in Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System where school systems follow and track student test scores between 4th and 8th grade in math, reading, social studies and science. Each student has a profile and their performance can be projected. Both of these systems contribute towards greater student performance. I tend believe that a system such as TAP is more effective. TAP is a way where teachers are not observed once a year and given a general unsatisfactory, satisfactory or proficient score. TAP consists of a rigorous method for evaluating teachers based on three important factors, designing and planning instruction, the learning environment and instruction. What do you think are the most important factors in evaluating teachers? Which system do you feel would be more effective in Baltimore City?
Teacher Buyouts? Budget Concerns vs. Losing Experienced Teachers
In an effort to offset budget shortfalls, Baltimore City Public Schools has offered a buy-out plan for up to 750 of its most experienced teachers. Teachers who have taught for more than 10 years can opt for an early-retirement package, which will pay 75% of a teacher’s current annual salary monthly, for a total of five years. Those who take the buyout will also get their regular pension at retirement age, but will not receive health benefits. BCPSS predicts a 73 million-budget deficit for next year, in addition to probably state budget cuts to education next year due to a change in the Thornton funding formula. BCPSS hopes to save 5-10 million from the buyout plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
