Better teachers in poor schools-how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 19:52-- what grade / subject do you teach? That is an awful lot of work for certification.

I did an alternative certification (think TFA, but a different program). Those programs have a lot of flaws, but this isn't the post for that. I took 2 or 3 tests total and got my masters during my first 2 years teaching. That's it. It was pretty manageable (well, getting it along w teaching was very rough, but the program itself was straightforward and unfortunately underwhelming).

19:52 here...

I teach a self-contained class of 4 year old students with special needs (in VA). Prior to that I taught general ed PreK in MD.
My kids needs vary from mild (developmental delays/speech delays) to severe (non ambulatory, ID students)

I have my Bachelors degree in Early Childhood Education (that was a series of practicums, student teaching, 4 PRAXIS tests).
Then I have my Masters degree in Special Education (2 more PRAXIS tests, internship)

Then when I moved to VA I was given a provisional Early Childhood Special Education License. VDOE told me I need to complete 5 classes in Early Childhood Special Ed and their state reading test for full certification.

It's a lot...
If only I had one more year of teaching under my belt before moving to VA, then I wouldn't have to do the 5 classes and reading test. If only I knew that prior to moving to VA. I probably wouldn't have come to VA if I had known licensing would make me do that. Each of those 5 classes are about 1000 dollars each!!

My school district has a lot of low income students, and old toys/materials. I found toys from the 1960s when I started! So I've bought materials for my room even though I've tried to be conservative (I didn't even have stuff to teach letters or numbers when I started, so I bought magnetic letters, Handwriting without Tears supplies, dry erase boards, letter puppets). My district did buy some stuff for me but their pretty strapped. I try to make materials too but it's hard to find the time (my students are full-day, 5 days a week and due to their needs I stay with them for specials so no prep time for me). I end up doing planning/prepping/special ed paperwork at home most of the time
My parents also don't send in snacks...so I buy snacks out of my own pocket. Otherwise some of the kids will most likely not get dinner at home...

It's exhausting...and a lot...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 19:52-- what grade / subject do you teach? That is an awful lot of work for certification.

I did an alternative certification (think TFA, but a different program). Those programs have a lot of flaws, but this isn't the post for that. I took 2 or 3 tests total and got my masters during my first 2 years teaching. That's it. It was pretty manageable (well, getting it along w teaching was very rough, but the program itself was straightforward and unfortunately underwhelming).

19:52 here...

I teach a self-contained class of 4 year old students with special needs (in VA). Prior to that I taught general ed PreK in MD.
My kids needs vary from mild (developmental delays/speech delays) to severe (non ambulatory, ID students)

I have my Bachelors degree in Early Childhood Education (that was a series of practicums, student teaching, 4 PRAXIS tests).
Then I have my Masters degree in Special Education (2 more PRAXIS tests, internship)

Then when I moved to VA I was given a provisional Early Childhood Special Education License. VDOE told me I need to complete 5 classes in Early Childhood Special Ed and their state reading test for full certification.

It's a lot...
If only I had one more year of teaching under my belt before moving to VA, then I wouldn't have to do the 5 classes and reading test. If only I knew that prior to moving to VA. I probably wouldn't have come to VA if I had known licensing would make me do that. Each of those 5 classes are about 1000 dollars each!!

My school district has a lot of low income students, and old toys/materials. I found toys from the 1960s when I started! So I've bought materials for my room even though I've tried to be conservative (I didn't even have stuff to teach letters or numbers when I started, so I bought magnetic letters, Handwriting without Tears supplies, dry erase boards, letter puppets). My district did buy some stuff for me but their pretty strapped. I try to make materials too but it's hard to find the time (my students are full-day, 5 days a week and due to their needs I stay with them for specials so no prep time for me). I end up doing planning/prepping/special ed paperwork at home most of the time
My parents also don't send in snacks...so I buy snacks out of my own pocket. Otherwise some of the kids will most likely not get dinner at home...

It's exhausting...and a lot...

Oh, I should add I taught full time while completing my Masters, and completed it in 2 years. I completed my internship over the summer during an ESY program.

[Anonymous]

This is what blows about a right to work state. A union would protect your planning time. But of course unions are evil and all they do 8 enable bad teachers /sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

I have seen the burnout and turnover rates are higher in title one schools. Plus title ones often have a smaller hiring pool o with more inexperienced teachers. The school invests a lot in the teacher to help get them up to speed and them often the teacher burns out of the profession or switches schools. It makes it hard to maintain a consistent high performing teaching cohort.

[Anonymous]

This is what blows about a right to work state. A union would protect your planning time. But of course unions are evil and all they do 8 enable bad teachers /sarcasm.

You claim to be sarcastic, but, as a teacher, what you state is correct. The leaders are most concerned about their own pay and jobs. And, they do enable bad teachers. I have seen this in action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is what blows about a right to work state. A union would protect your planning time. But of course unions are evil and all they do 8 enable bad teachers /sarcasm.

You claim to be sarcastic, but, as a teacher, what you state is correct. The leaders are most concerned about their own pay and jobs. And, they do enable bad teachers. I have seen this in action.

My mother was a teacher. The only thing the teachers union cared about was collecting union dues.

[Anonymous]

I taught in a system two years after a strike. The main beneficiary? The teacher that led it. He was hired to run the union at a salary quadruple those who were teaching.

[Anonymous]

cont. Other beneficiaries were other leaders. They were "fired" by the system and rehired two years later into supervisory positions.

[Anonymous]

cont. This sweet deal was worked out with the school superintendent/board. They knew when they were fired that they would be rehired with better paid jobs. Meanwhile, the teachers got almost nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because the "better parents" are in the rich schools?

I think this quote from the comments section of the article sums it up best

"I didn't have to read much past the first paragraph to call bull****. As someone who works in a Title 1, high poverty school district, I challenge this assumption. Take the faculty of any high performing, low poverty school district and send them on over. (We can use the break.) Then watch these "stronger educators" do absolutely no better than we do.

No wait. At first they'll do worse until the shock wears off and the casualties are replaced.

This whole mess is driven by the assumption that poverty can be nullified in the classroom. This is so stupid I can only assume those promoting it are either lying or grossly incompetent.

The answer is probably both."

[Anonymous]

Title I teacher above is correct--but it will never happen.

Schools will follow the FCPS model: put GT centers in poor performing schools. Test scores will rise--but test scores of low performers will not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This rule is based on a false assumption: That it all depends on the teachers. I've taught in both--worked my tail off in the poor school. Worked hard in the average school. Guess which kids got better scores?

I agree with this. I feel like teachers are held responsible for factors that are totally out of their control.

So much of a kid's success depends on parental involvement and stability at home. We are expecting teachers to work miracles. It's not fair.

Yes, part of it is based on having good teachers, but not all. It does not all depend on the teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear you. It's about time for our CC friend to weighin and tell us that we just need Common Core standards and all will be well.

I'm not the Common Core friend, I promise just chiming in

I'm the PP from above, the early childhood special ed teacher.

When I was completing my Masters degree, we spent a chunk of time exploring the actual Common Core standards. The actual standards and intent of them are not bad, it's the implementation that is bad. Districts have implemented it with little knowledge, only what the "big pharma" testing agencies and curriculum books say (*ahem Pearson*). Common Core came out, curriculum books stamped "Common Core approved" on their books and there it was. Most districts/teachers are implementing the Common Core without a full understanding of it.

There needs to be more training on the implementation of Common Core and what the standards actually are, and less standardized testing so our poor kids won't be so stressed out then the standards won't be so bad.

Yeah Verily! I have a 4th grader in MCPS. I have a teacher spouse in PGCPS elementary, who works his butt off. Honestly, there are days I wonder why we don't just move to PGCPS, where at least implementation is not MCPS garbage and kids are on the A-E grades. What the hell is a P? He taught in MCPS and got little training or support. PGPCS is much nicer to their teachers and gives them training (not nearly enough) and some freedoms that curriculum 2.0 does not. Pay stinks in both counties, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because the "better parents" are in the rich schools?

I think this quote from the comments section of the article sums it up best

"I didn't have to read much past the first paragraph to call bull****. As someone who works in a Title 1, high poverty school district, I challenge this assumption. Take the faculty of any high performing, low poverty school district and send them on over. (We can use the break.) Then watch these "stronger educators" do absolutely no better than we do.

No wait. At first they'll do worse until the shock wears off and the casualties are replaced.

This whole mess is driven by the assumption that poverty can be nullified in the classroom. This is so stupid I can only assume those promoting it are either lying or grossly incompetent.

The answer is probably both."

Yeah that.

I think it might even be a shock to their system to realize you can put for an amazing effort for your students and still only get minimal results. It's a real uphill battle at times.

[Anonymous]

People who have not taught in this environment have NO clue.