To the parents in "good schools"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It also goes noticed when teachers don't spend time with children helping them in any way. The main issue I've seen with teachers in wealthier schools is that there are kids who aren't bored but go off track on work or don't complete work because the teacher isn't really involved with the class.

That would seem like a relatively small subset of students. If the kids go off track or don't complete work, it's likely to affect their grades, their test scores, or both, and the parents will notice.

Unfortunately that really doesn't happen because the SOL's are covering basic skills, not a lot of growth for these children. So yes, it's noticeable when kids don't pass SOL's, but grades can be inflated and are also not a very good measure of progress.

If it were all that simple, then the SOL pass rates at the poorer schools where the teachers are supposedly motivated to bust their butts so hard presumably would be higher.

I work in a Title I school. My kids attend school in a high income area. The issue with the SOL is really linguistic. Kids who have language issues (ESOL, SPED, or just a lack of language acquisition) will struggle on these tests because of the way they are structure. In a lot of ways, the SOL is as much a content test as a language test, but we struggle with teaching academic language to students particularly when they are either learning English or just getting gaps filled that their parents would normally do.

I agree with OP in a lot of ways. I have two kids and there is definitely a mentality that it's up to the parents to "fix" things. In some ways, it makes sense. I had a kid with speech issues and he didn't qualify for services, but would be facing a big issue if we didn't intervene (sadly, this happens with my own students with speech issues they fall way, way behind in literacy and then qualify for speech but are behind the curve). I paid for speech privately, and he was able to clear his issues before they became a big problem. Poorer parents can't do this.

On the other hand, when it comes to things like classroom management, I actually think my kids' wealthy school is sort of a mess. My other kid had normal issues (talking, calling out, etc.). One year I got weekly e-mails about this until I suggested a conference. In the conference I asked what strategies the teacher used to either redirect, whether there was a behavior improvement plan, what her class structure was like (many independent desk activities without teacher intervention), whether any of the best practices were being followed generally and she looked at me like I was an alien. She basically recommended I get private testing for ADHD, which we actually led to me realizing my kid who was "struggling to learn" was, in fact, gifted (thanks COGAT). And didn't have ADHD. And surprise, my kid also wasn't behind. She was a kid who needed classroom management. So, the e-mails were sent for a purpose. Because when that teacher was observed, if my kid was acting up (or any kid) the teacher would have cover of sorts. It's lazy as hell, but effective.

Ironically, both kids are now in a middle school that is a high FARMS AAP center middle school and I've actually been incredibly pleased. So, there's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It also goes noticed when teachers don't spend time with children helping them in any way. The main issue I've seen with teachers in wealthier schools is that there are kids who aren't bored but go off track on work or don't complete work because the teacher isn't really involved with the class.

That would seem like a relatively small subset of students. If the kids go off track or don't complete work, it's likely to affect their grades, their test scores, or both, and the parents will notice.

Unfortunately that really doesn't happen because the SOL's are covering basic skills, not a lot of growth for these children. So yes, it's noticeable when kids don't pass SOL's, but grades can be inflated and are also not a very good measure of progress.

If it were all that simple, then the SOL pass rates at the poorer schools where the teachers are supposedly motivated to bust their butts so hard presumably would be higher.

I work in a Title I school. My kids attend school in a high income area. The issue with the SOL is really linguistic. Kids who have language issues (ESOL, SPED, or just a lack of language acquisition) will struggle on these tests because of the way they are structure. In a lot of ways, the SOL is as much a content test as a language test, but we struggle with teaching academic language to students particularly when they are either learning English or just getting gaps filled that their parents would normally do.

I agree with OP in a lot of ways. I have two kids and there is definitely a mentality that it's up to the parents to "fix" things. In some ways, it makes sense. I had a kid with speech issues and he didn't qualify for services, but would be facing a big issue if we didn't intervene (sadly, this happens with my own students with speech issues they fall way, way behind in literacy and then qualify for speech but are behind the curve). I paid for speech privately, and he was able to clear his issues before they became a big problem. Poorer parents can't do this.

On the other hand, when it comes to things like classroom management, I actually think my kids' wealthy school is sort of a mess. My other kid had normal issues (talking, calling out, etc.). One year I got weekly e-mails about this until I suggested a conference. In the conference I asked what strategies the teacher used to either redirect, whether there was a behavior improvement plan, what her class structure was like (many independent desk activities without teacher intervention), whether any of the best practices were being followed generally and she looked at me like I was an alien. She basically recommended I get private testing for ADHD, which we actually led to me realizing my kid who was "struggling to learn" was, in fact, gifted (thanks COGAT). And didn't have ADHD. And surprise, my kid also wasn't behind. She was a kid who needed classroom management. So, the e-mails were sent for a purpose. Because when that teacher was observed, if my kid was acting up (or any kid) the teacher would have cover of sorts. It's lazy as hell, but effective.

Ironically, both kids are now in a middle school that is a high FARMS AAP center middle school and I've actually been incredibly pleased. So, there's that.

Principal (well, AP) in a wealthy school. The e-mails about the classroom management issues is a huge problem and something I've seen a lot. FWIW, I tend to send specialists and counselors into the classroom to get a better idea before a teacher can student "Student X" is a problem. Frankly, I don't trust the teachers unless they can demonstrate they did the work before bringing a problem to me to solve (most don't). I came from a Title I school as well (I transferred here to learn more about working with this population) and yes. There is so much space for teachers to be lazy if they aren't held accountable by admins. We try, but there are many things and this is one of those things that falls by the wayside too often, fwiw. If anything, I am pressured to give breaks, rely on data (which is good) because doing more is more work for everyone and there's no reason to create work that doesn't really matter. I'm a year and a few months in and I wouldn't take a full principal position in a non-title I school. My expectations are too high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It also goes noticed when teachers don't spend time with children helping them in any way. The main issue I've seen with teachers in wealthier schools is that there are kids who aren't bored but go off track on work or don't complete work because the teacher isn't really involved with the class.

That would seem like a relatively small subset of students. If the kids go off track or don't complete work, it's likely to affect their grades, their test scores, or both, and the parents will notice.

Unfortunately that really doesn't happen because the SOL's are covering basic skills, not a lot of growth for these children. So yes, it's noticeable when kids don't pass SOL's, but grades can be inflated and are also not a very good measure of progress.

If it were all that simple, then the SOL pass rates at the poorer schools where the teachers are supposedly motivated to bust their butts so hard presumably would be higher.

I work in a Title I school. My kids attend school in a high income area. The issue with the SOL is really linguistic. Kids who have language issues (ESOL, SPED, or just a lack of language acquisition) will struggle on these tests because of the way they are structure. In a lot of ways, the SOL is as much a content test as a language test, but we struggle with teaching academic language to students particularly when they are either learning English or just getting gaps filled that their parents would normally do.

I agree with OP in a lot of ways. I have two kids and there is definitely a mentality that it's up to the parents to "fix" things. In some ways, it makes sense. I had a kid with speech issues and he didn't qualify for services, but would be facing a big issue if we didn't intervene (sadly, this happens with my own students with speech issues they fall way, way behind in literacy and then qualify for speech but are behind the curve). I paid for speech privately, and he was able to clear his issues before they became a big problem. Poorer parents can't do this.

On the other hand, when it comes to things like classroom management, I actually think my kids' wealthy school is sort of a mess. My other kid had normal issues (talking, calling out, etc.). One year I got weekly e-mails about this until I suggested a conference. In the conference I asked what strategies the teacher used to either redirect, whether there was a behavior improvement plan, what her class structure was like (many independent desk activities without teacher intervention), whether any of the best practices were being followed generally and she looked at me like I was an alien. She basically recommended I get private testing for ADHD, which we actually led to me realizing my kid who was "struggling to learn" was, in fact, gifted (thanks COGAT). And didn't have ADHD. And surprise, my kid also wasn't behind. She was a kid who needed classroom management. So, the e-mails were sent for a purpose. Because when that teacher was observed, if my kid was acting up (or any kid) the teacher would have cover of sorts. It's lazy as hell, but effective.

Ironically, both kids are now in a middle school that is a high FARMS AAP center middle school and I've actually been incredibly pleased. So, there's that.

Principal (well, AP) in a wealthy school. The e-mails about the classroom management issues is a huge problem and something I've seen a lot. FWIW, I tend to send specialists and counselors into the classroom to get a better idea before a teacher can student "Student X" is a problem. Frankly, I don't trust the teachers unless they can demonstrate they did the work before bringing a problem to me to solve (most don't). I came from a Title I school as well (I transferred here to learn more about working with this population) and yes. There is so much space for teachers to be lazy if they aren't held accountable by admins. We try, but there are many things and this is one of those things that falls by the wayside too often, fwiw. If anything, I am pressured to give breaks, rely on data (which is good) because doing more is more work for everyone and there's no reason to create work that doesn't really matter. I'm a year and a few months in and I wouldn't take a full principal position in a non-title I school. My expectations are too high.

LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It also goes noticed when teachers don't spend time with children helping them in any way. The main issue I've seen with teachers in wealthier schools is that there are kids who aren't bored but go off track on work or don't complete work because the teacher isn't really involved with the class.

That would seem like a relatively small subset of students. If the kids go off track or don't complete work, it's likely to affect their grades, their test scores, or both, and the parents will notice.

Unfortunately that really doesn't happen because the SOL's are covering basic skills, not a lot of growth for these children. So yes, it's noticeable when kids don't pass SOL's, but grades can be inflated and are also not a very good measure of progress.

If it were all that simple, then the SOL pass rates at the poorer schools where the teachers are supposedly motivated to bust their butts so hard presumably would be higher.

I work in a Title I school. My kids attend school in a high income area. The issue with the SOL is really linguistic. Kids who have language issues (ESOL, SPED, or just a lack of language acquisition) will struggle on these tests because of the way they are structure. In a lot of ways, the SOL is as much a content test as a language test, but we struggle with teaching academic language to students particularly when they are either learning English or just getting gaps filled that their parents would normally do.

I agree with OP in a lot of ways. I have two kids and there is definitely a mentality that it's up to the parents to "fix" things. In some ways, it makes sense. I had a kid with speech issues and he didn't qualify for services, but would be facing a big issue if we didn't intervene (sadly, this happens with my own students with speech issues they fall way, way behind in literacy and then qualify for speech but are behind the curve). I paid for speech privately, and he was able to clear his issues before they became a big problem. Poorer parents can't do this.

On the other hand, when it comes to things like classroom management, I actually think my kids' wealthy school is sort of a mess. My other kid had normal issues (talking, calling out, etc.). One year I got weekly e-mails about this until I suggested a conference. In the conference I asked what strategies the teacher used to either redirect, whether there was a behavior improvement plan, what her class structure was like (many independent desk activities without teacher intervention), whether any of the best practices were being followed generally and she looked at me like I was an alien. She basically recommended I get private testing for ADHD, which we actually led to me realizing my kid who was "struggling to learn" was, in fact, gifted (thanks COGAT). And didn't have ADHD. And surprise, my kid also wasn't behind. She was a kid who needed classroom management. So, the e-mails were sent for a purpose. Because when that teacher was observed, if my kid was acting up (or any kid) the teacher would have cover of sorts. It's lazy as hell, but effective.

Ironically, both kids are now in a middle school that is a high FARMS AAP center middle school and I've actually been incredibly pleased. So, there's that.

Principal (well, AP) in a wealthy school. The e-mails about the classroom management issues is a huge problem and something I've seen a lot. FWIW, I tend to send specialists and counselors into the classroom to get a better idea before a teacher can student "Student X" is a problem. Frankly, I don't trust the teachers unless they can demonstrate they did the work before bringing a problem to me to solve (most don't). I came from a Title I school as well (I transferred here to learn more about working with this population) and yes. There is so much space for teachers to be lazy if they aren't held accountable by admins. We try, but there are many things and this is one of those things that falls by the wayside too often, fwiw. If anything, I am pressured to give breaks, rely on data (which is good) because doing more is more work for everyone and there's no reason to create work that doesn't really matter. I'm a year and a few months in and I wouldn't take a full principal position in a non-title I school. My expectations are too high.

LOL.

The point?

[Anonymous]

My child's SOL grades haven't changed at all from the previous to new version. I think they changed the format, not the difficulty. They also reduced the number of tests almost in half leaving room for teachers to spend less time on non SOL subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It also goes noticed when teachers don't spend time with children helping them in any way. The main issue I've seen with teachers in wealthier schools is that there are kids who aren't bored but go off track on work or don't complete work because the teacher isn't really involved with the class.

That would seem like a relatively small subset of students. If the kids go off track or don't complete work, it's likely to affect their grades, their test scores, or both, and the parents will notice.

Unfortunately that really doesn't happen because the SOL's are covering basic skills, not a lot of growth for these children. So yes, it's noticeable when kids don't pass SOL's, but grades can be inflated and are also not a very good measure of progress.

If it were all that simple, then the SOL pass rates at the poorer schools where the teachers are supposedly motivated to bust their butts so hard presumably would be higher.

I work in a Title I school. My kids attend school in a high income area. The issue with the SOL is really linguistic. Kids who have language issues (ESOL, SPED, or just a lack of language acquisition) will struggle on these tests because of the way they are structure. In a lot of ways, the SOL is as much a content test as a language test, but we struggle with teaching academic language to students particularly when they are either learning English or just getting gaps filled that their parents would normally do.

I agree with OP in a lot of ways. I have two kids and there is definitely a mentality that it's up to the parents to "fix" things. In some ways, it makes sense. I had a kid with speech issues and he didn't qualify for services, but would be facing a big issue if we didn't intervene (sadly, this happens with my own students with speech issues they fall way, way behind in literacy and then qualify for speech but are behind the curve). I paid for speech privately, and he was able to clear his issues before they became a big problem. Poorer parents can't do this.

On the other hand, when it comes to things like classroom management, I actually think my kids' wealthy school is sort of a mess. My other kid had normal issues (talking, calling out, etc.). One year I got weekly e-mails about this until I suggested a conference. In the conference I asked what strategies the teacher used to either redirect, whether there was a behavior improvement plan, what her class structure was like (many independent desk activities without teacher intervention), whether any of the best practices were being followed generally and she looked at me like I was an alien. She basically recommended I get private testing for ADHD, which we actually led to me realizing my kid who was "struggling to learn" was, in fact, gifted (thanks COGAT). And didn't have ADHD. And surprise, my kid also wasn't behind. She was a kid who needed classroom management. So, the e-mails were sent for a purpose. Because when that teacher was observed, if my kid was acting up (or any kid) the teacher would have cover of sorts. It's lazy as hell, but effective.

Ironically, both kids are now in a middle school that is a high FARMS AAP center middle school and I've actually been incredibly pleased. So, there's that.

Principal (well, AP) in a wealthy school. The e-mails about the classroom management issues is a huge problem and something I've seen a lot. FWIW, I tend to send specialists and counselors into the classroom to get a better idea before a teacher can student "Student X" is a problem. Frankly, I don't trust the teachers unless they can demonstrate they did the work before bringing a problem to me to solve (most don't). I came from a Title I school as well (I transferred here to learn more about working with this population) and yes. There is so much space for teachers to be lazy if they aren't held accountable by admins. We try, but there are many things and this is one of those things that falls by the wayside too often, fwiw. If anything, I am pressured to give breaks, rely on data (which is good) because doing more is more work for everyone and there's no reason to create work that doesn't really matter. I'm a year and a few months in and I wouldn't take a full principal position in a non-title I school. My expectations are too high.

LOL.

great attitude from shool leadership... why try to be part of the solution (at a no title 1 school) when you can just ignore it. You're no better then those you are critiquing - pot meet kettle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It also goes noticed when teachers don't spend time with children helping them in any way. The main issue I've seen with teachers in wealthier schools is that there are kids who aren't bored but go off track on work or don't complete work because the teacher isn't really involved with the class.

That would seem like a relatively small subset of students. If the kids go off track or don't complete work, it's likely to affect their grades, their test scores, or both, and the parents will notice.

Unfortunately that really doesn't happen because the SOL's are covering basic skills, not a lot of growth for these children. So yes, it's noticeable when kids don't pass SOL's, but grades can be inflated and are also not a very good measure of progress.

If it were all that simple, then the SOL pass rates at the poorer schools where the teachers are supposedly motivated to bust their butts so hard presumably would be higher.

I work in a Title I school. My kids attend school in a high income area. The issue with the SOL is really linguistic. Kids who have language issues (ESOL, SPED, or just a lack of language acquisition) will struggle on these tests because of the way they are structure. In a lot of ways, the SOL is as much a content test as a language test, but we struggle with teaching academic language to students particularly when they are either learning English or just getting gaps filled that their parents would normally do.

I agree with OP in a lot of ways. I have two kids and there is definitely a mentality that it's up to the parents to "fix" things. In some ways, it makes sense. I had a kid with speech issues and he didn't qualify for services, but would be facing a big issue if we didn't intervene (sadly, this happens with my own students with speech issues they fall way, way behind in literacy and then qualify for speech but are behind the curve). I paid for speech privately, and he was able to clear his issues before they became a big problem. Poorer parents can't do this.

On the other hand, when it comes to things like classroom management, I actually think my kids' wealthy school is sort of a mess. My other kid had normal issues (talking, calling out, etc.). One year I got weekly e-mails about this until I suggested a conference. In the conference I asked what strategies the teacher used to either redirect, whether there was a behavior improvement plan, what her class structure was like (many independent desk activities without teacher intervention), whether any of the best practices were being followed generally and she looked at me like I was an alien. She basically recommended I get private testing for ADHD, which we actually led to me realizing my kid who was "struggling to learn" was, in fact, gifted (thanks COGAT). And didn't have ADHD. And surprise, my kid also wasn't behind. She was a kid who needed classroom management. So, the e-mails were sent for a purpose. Because when that teacher was observed, if my kid was acting up (or any kid) the teacher would have cover of sorts. It's lazy as hell, but effective.

Ironically, both kids are now in a middle school that is a high FARMS AAP center middle school and I've actually been incredibly pleased. So, there's that.

Principal (well, AP) in a wealthy school. The e-mails about the classroom management issues is a huge problem and something I've seen a lot. FWIW, I tend to send specialists and counselors into the classroom to get a better idea before a teacher can student "Student X" is a problem. Frankly, I don't trust the teachers unless they can demonstrate they did the work before bringing a problem to me to solve (most don't). I came from a Title I school as well (I transferred here to learn more about working with this population) and yes. There is so much space for teachers to be lazy if they aren't held accountable by admins. We try, but there are many things and this is one of those things that falls by the wayside too often, fwiw. If anything, I am pressured to give breaks, rely on data (which is good) because doing more is more work for everyone and there's no reason to create work that doesn't really matter. I'm a year and a few months in and I wouldn't take a full principal position in a non-title I school. My expectations are too high.

LOL.

great attitude from shool leadership... why try to be part of the solution (at a no title 1 school) when you can just ignore it. You're no better then those you are critiquing - pot meet kettle.

Um, you seem to have reading issues. The AP made it clear that she doesn't let teachers coast, she uses specialists to observe to confirm issues and is actually more responsive than her school culture's demand. If anything, I'd prefer an admin who actually trying to get to the root cause of an issue instead of just passing the buck.

Then again, I think this thread is telling. Parents seem to be more invested in their homes' value than in actually supporting their kids and schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It also goes noticed when teachers don't spend time with children helping them in any way. The main issue I've seen with teachers in wealthier schools is that there are kids who aren't bored but go off track on work or don't complete work because the teacher isn't really involved with the class.

That would seem like a relatively small subset of students. If the kids go off track or don't complete work, it's likely to affect their grades, their test scores, or both, and the parents will notice.

Unfortunately that really doesn't happen because the SOL's are covering basic skills, not a lot of growth for these children. So yes, it's noticeable when kids don't pass SOL's, but grades can be inflated and are also not a very good measure of progress.

If it were all that simple, then the SOL pass rates at the poorer schools where the teachers are supposedly motivated to bust their butts so hard presumably would be higher.

I work in a Title I school. My kids attend school in a high income area. The issue with the SOL is really linguistic. Kids who have language issues (ESOL, SPED, or just a lack of language acquisition) will struggle on these tests because of the way they are structure. In a lot of ways, the SOL is as much a content test as a language test, but we struggle with teaching academic language to students particularly when they are either learning English or just getting gaps filled that their parents would normally do.

I agree with OP in a lot of ways. I have two kids and there is definitely a mentality that it's up to the parents to "fix" things. In some ways, it makes sense. I had a kid with speech issues and he didn't qualify for services, but would be facing a big issue if we didn't intervene (sadly, this happens with my own students with speech issues they fall way, way behind in literacy and then qualify for speech but are behind the curve). I paid for speech privately, and he was able to clear his issues before they became a big problem. Poorer parents can't do this.

On the other hand, when it comes to things like classroom management, I actually think my kids' wealthy school is sort of a mess. My other kid had normal issues (talking, calling out, etc.). One year I got weekly e-mails about this until I suggested a conference. In the conference I asked what strategies the teacher used to either redirect, whether there was a behavior improvement plan, what her class structure was like (many independent desk activities without teacher intervention), whether any of the best practices were being followed generally and she looked at me like I was an alien. She basically recommended I get private testing for ADHD, which we actually led to me realizing my kid who was "struggling to learn" was, in fact, gifted (thanks COGAT). And didn't have ADHD. And surprise, my kid also wasn't behind. She was a kid who needed classroom management. So, the e-mails were sent for a purpose. Because when that teacher was observed, if my kid was acting up (or any kid) the teacher would have cover of sorts. It's lazy as hell, but effective.

Ironically, both kids are now in a middle school that is a high FARMS AAP center middle school and I've actually been incredibly pleased. So, there's that.

Principal (well, AP) in a wealthy school. The e-mails about the classroom management issues is a huge problem and something I've seen a lot. FWIW, I tend to send specialists and counselors into the classroom to get a better idea before a teacher can student "Student X" is a problem. Frankly, I don't trust the teachers unless they can demonstrate they did the work before bringing a problem to me to solve (most don't). I came from a Title I school as well (I transferred here to learn more about working with this population) and yes. There is so much space for teachers to be lazy if they aren't held accountable by admins. We try, but there are many things and this is one of those things that falls by the wayside too often, fwiw. If anything, I am pressured to give breaks, rely on data (which is good) because doing more is more work for everyone and there's no reason to create work that doesn't really matter. I'm a year and a few months in and I wouldn't take a full principal position in a non-title I school. My expectations are too high.

LOL.

great attitude from shool leadership... why try to be part of the solution (at a no title 1 school) when you can just ignore it. You're no better then those you are critiquing - pot meet kettle.

Um, you seem to have reading issues. The AP made it clear that she doesn't let teachers coast, she uses specialists to observe to confirm issues and is actually more responsive than her school culture's demand. If anything, I'd prefer an admin who actually trying to get to the root cause of an issue instead of just passing the buck.

Then again, I think this thread is telling. Parents seem to be more invested in their homes' value than in actually supporting their kids and schools.

Right, the AP above says he/she does what you describe AT a title 1 school. But says they won't work at a non-Title 1 school because "my expectations are too high". The point isn't are they doing something about it, its that AP refuses to do something about it AT a non-Title 1 school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It also goes noticed when teachers don't spend time with children helping them in any way. The main issue I've seen with teachers in wealthier schools is that there are kids who aren't bored but go off track on work or don't complete work because the teacher isn't really involved with the class.

That would seem like a relatively small subset of students. If the kids go off track or don't complete work, it's likely to affect their grades, their test scores, or both, and the parents will notice.

Unfortunately that really doesn't happen because the SOL's are covering basic skills, not a lot of growth for these children. So yes, it's noticeable when kids don't pass SOL's, but grades can be inflated and are also not a very good measure of progress.

If it were all that simple, then the SOL pass rates at the poorer schools where the teachers are supposedly motivated to bust their butts so hard presumably would be higher.

I work in a Title I school. My kids attend school in a high income area. The issue with the SOL is really linguistic. Kids who have language issues (ESOL, SPED, or just a lack of language acquisition) will struggle on these tests because of the way they are structure. In a lot of ways, the SOL is as much a content test as a language test, but we struggle with teaching academic language to students particularly when they are either learning English or just getting gaps filled that their parents would normally do.

I agree with OP in a lot of ways. I have two kids and there is definitely a mentality that it's up to the parents to "fix" things. In some ways, it makes sense. I had a kid with speech issues and he didn't qualify for services, but would be facing a big issue if we didn't intervene (sadly, this happens with my own students with speech issues they fall way, way behind in literacy and then qualify for speech but are behind the curve). I paid for speech privately, and he was able to clear his issues before they became a big problem. Poorer parents can't do this.

On the other hand, when it comes to things like classroom management, I actually think my kids' wealthy school is sort of a mess. My other kid had normal issues (talking, calling out, etc.). One year I got weekly e-mails about this until I suggested a conference. In the conference I asked what strategies the teacher used to either redirect, whether there was a behavior improvement plan, what her class structure was like (many independent desk activities without teacher intervention), whether any of the best practices were being followed generally and she looked at me like I was an alien. She basically recommended I get private testing for ADHD, which we actually led to me realizing my kid who was "struggling to learn" was, in fact, gifted (thanks COGAT). And didn't have ADHD. And surprise, my kid also wasn't behind. She was a kid who needed classroom management. So, the e-mails were sent for a purpose. Because when that teacher was observed, if my kid was acting up (or any kid) the teacher would have cover of sorts. It's lazy as hell, but effective.

Ironically, both kids are now in a middle school that is a high FARMS AAP center middle school and I've actually been incredibly pleased. So, there's that.

Principal (well, AP) in a wealthy school. The e-mails about the classroom management issues is a huge problem and something I've seen a lot. FWIW, I tend to send specialists and counselors into the classroom to get a better idea before a teacher can student "Student X" is a problem. Frankly, I don't trust the teachers unless they can demonstrate they did the work before bringing a problem to me to solve (most don't). I came from a Title I school as well (I transferred here to learn more about working with this population) and yes. There is so much space for teachers to be lazy if they aren't held accountable by admins. We try, but there are many things and this is one of those things that falls by the wayside too often, fwiw. If anything, I am pressured to give breaks, rely on data (which is good) because doing more is more work for everyone and there's no reason to create work that doesn't really matter. I'm a year and a few months in and I wouldn't take a full principal position in a non-title I school. My expectations are too high.

LOL.

great attitude from shool leadership... why try to be part of the solution (at a no title 1 school) when you can just ignore it. You're no better then those you are critiquing - pot meet kettle.

Um, you seem to have reading issues. The AP made it clear that she doesn't let teachers coast, she uses specialists to observe to confirm issues and is actually more responsive than her school culture's demand. If anything, I'd prefer an admin who actually trying to get to the root cause of an issue instead of just passing the buck.

Then again, I think this thread is telling. Parents seem to be more invested in their homes' value than in actually supporting their kids and schools.

\

The schools with the best academics and extra-curriculars aren't Title I schools (or the middle and high schools into which they feed). Parents are doing plenty to support the top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It also goes noticed when teachers don't spend time with children helping them in any way. The main issue I've seen with teachers in wealthier schools is that there are kids who aren't bored but go off track on work or don't complete work because the teacher isn't really involved with the class.

That would seem like a relatively small subset of students. If the kids go off track or don't complete work, it's likely to affect their grades, their test scores, or both, and the parents will notice.

Unfortunately that really doesn't happen because the SOL's are covering basic skills, not a lot of growth for these children. So yes, it's noticeable when kids don't pass SOL's, but grades can be inflated and are also not a very good measure of progress.

If it were all that simple, then the SOL pass rates at the poorer schools where the teachers are supposedly motivated to bust their butts so hard presumably would be higher.

I work in a Title I school. My kids attend school in a high income area. The issue with the SOL is really linguistic. Kids who have language issues (ESOL, SPED, or just a lack of language acquisition) will struggle on these tests because of the way they are structure. In a lot of ways, the SOL is as much a content test as a language test, but we struggle with teaching academic language to students particularly when they are either learning English or just getting gaps filled that their parents would normally do.

I agree with OP in a lot of ways. I have two kids and there is definitely a mentality that it's up to the parents to "fix" things. In some ways, it makes sense. I had a kid with speech issues and he didn't qualify for services, but would be facing a big issue if we didn't intervene (sadly, this happens with my own students with speech issues they fall way, way behind in literacy and then qualify for speech but are behind the curve). I paid for speech privately, and he was able to clear his issues before they became a big problem. Poorer parents can't do this.

On the other hand, when it comes to things like classroom management, I actually think my kids' wealthy school is sort of a mess. My other kid had normal issues (talking, calling out, etc.). One year I got weekly e-mails about this until I suggested a conference. In the conference I asked what strategies the teacher used to either redirect, whether there was a behavior improvement plan, what her class structure was like (many independent desk activities without teacher intervention), whether any of the best practices were being followed generally and she looked at me like I was an alien. She basically recommended I get private testing for ADHD, which we actually led to me realizing my kid who was "struggling to learn" was, in fact, gifted (thanks COGAT). And didn't have ADHD. And surprise, my kid also wasn't behind. She was a kid who needed classroom management. So, the e-mails were sent for a purpose. Because when that teacher was observed, if my kid was acting up (or any kid) the teacher would have cover of sorts. It's lazy as hell, but effective.

Ironically, both kids are now in a middle school that is a high FARMS AAP center middle school and I've actually been incredibly pleased. So, there's that.

Principal (well, AP) in a wealthy school. The e-mails about the classroom management issues is a huge problem and something I've seen a lot. FWIW, I tend to send specialists and counselors into the classroom to get a better idea before a teacher can student "Student X" is a problem. Frankly, I don't trust the teachers unless they can demonstrate they did the work before bringing a problem to me to solve (most don't). I came from a Title I school as well (I transferred here to learn more about working with this population) and yes. There is so much space for teachers to be lazy if they aren't held accountable by admins. We try, but there are many things and this is one of those things that falls by the wayside too often, fwiw. If anything, I am pressured to give breaks, rely on data (which is good) because doing more is more work for everyone and there's no reason to create work that doesn't really matter. I'm a year and a few months in and I wouldn't take a full principal position in a non-title I school. My expectations are too high.

LOL.

great attitude from shool leadership... why try to be part of the solution (at a no title 1 school) when you can just ignore it. You're no better then those you are critiquing - pot meet kettle.

Um, you seem to have reading issues. The AP made it clear that she doesn't let teachers coast, she uses specialists to observe to confirm issues and is actually more responsive than her school culture's demand. If anything, I'd prefer an admin who actually trying to get to the root cause of an issue instead of just passing the buck.

Then again, I think this thread is telling. Parents seem to be more invested in their homes' value than in actually supporting their kids and schools.

Right, the AP above says he/she does what you describe AT a title 1 school. But says they won't work at a non-Title 1 school because "my expectations are too high". The point isn't are they doing something about it, its that AP refuses to do something about it AT a non-Title 1 school.

Reading issues, PP. The AP explicitly says she currently works at a non-Title I wealthy school, though she worked at a Title I previously. It sounds like she doesn't want to stay there long-term because the culture doesn't jive with her expectations for teachers. It's pretty obvious, actually.

[Anonymous]

Our principal promotes entirely from within, partly to make sure that she doesn't have to deal with any new ideas that would give her more work to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not that no one cares about teachers and principals coasting. It's that there aren't a lot of better options. The trade off for better teachers and more farms students isn't a huge draw and private school require you to pay taxes and pay out of pocket. Some of the mid level schools are nice, but often have run down houses or aren't close to jobs. For any complaint about a high achieving school, administrators in FCPS will tell parents that they have it fine and there are other schools with higher needs. The only way there would be more pressure is if more magnet schools were created like ATS. That might push some other schools to work a little harder to keep their children. But generally the population is increasing in Fairfax, so if one child leaves, they are soon replaced with another child.

So, then we probably need to quit it with the whole high test scores = better teachers thing huh? Maybe tell every politician this.

I think this is really the big point. The past 20 years, it's been test score, test score, test score. People have gone to prison for screwing with testing because the incentives were there. But in reality, it seems as though test scores really don't matter. Growth does. Engagement does. But those are expensive, difficult things to measure. So, what do we do when the system is baked in one way but it doesn't actually serve students?

Growth is not that hard to measure. Just measure it from year to year or measure it from the beginning of the year to the end.
Engagement can be done through a survey.

The tricky part about growth is that it slows. So, schools who have a lot of kids who are doing well are not going to grow as quickly as kids who are way behind.

To judge engagement, surveys isn't going to cut it. You actually need to see teachers teach, you need to see their lesson plans, and you basically have to do what OP said she had to do when she worked in a Title I school. I don't see that going over well, fwiw.

There are schools that successfully measure both grown and achievement. In fact, some of the websites out there already do that. Wasn't that a big argument at the federal level that DeVos acted as if she didn't even understand the question?

The principal is supposed to be judging the engagement already, no? Does the principal not turn in anything on this already?

Ed researcher here: growth is difficult to measure, though there are competing models for doing it. In my view, we should measure growth but not assume it's telling the full story. The problem is once there's a number, people tend to reify it as truth--or at least that the error is evenly distributed rather than systematically distorted. Some challenges 1) kids are growing all the time at different rates from different experiences and none of these thing are randomly assigned to school or to class/teacher, 2)There are substantial ceiling effects in most educational measures used so low-performing kids have much more room to grow, whereas high performing kids hit a ceiling. Raising the ceiling on a measure is challenging and creates more error throughout making the overall measure less reliable.3) Similarly, there's a regression toward the mean in all measures as just part of statistics, so below average will regress up to the mean and above average will regress down to the mean 3) Some of the most valuable growth in education is in small amounts across dispersed areas that suddenly coalesce into growth--some of this age-related, some of this just the dynamics of skill development. So a teacher who laid the groundwork for growth could have little evidence of it and then the teacher who happened to be there when things all came together would get credit.

Youg children's engagement is not best measured by a simple survey but rather observational reports (e.g. via things like CLASS assessment at the early grade level) but those are labor intensive.

None of these things measure a specific teacher's work terribly well, but they do measure a school fairly well. If there are a lot of gaps showing up for a school, it brings focus to resolving issues which is what OP is saying isn't being done at certain schools.

I agree, but the issue with the "coasting" at decently-performing schools is often the ceiling effect on measures--it's hard to see if its happening. Also, once as school does "good enough" on standardized measures, it might a) coast, b) hyper-focus on getting those last bits of improvement on standardized tests c) focus its extra energies on things that might not be measured (e.g., creativity, soft skills, enrichment, critical thinking...) or introduce more advanced content that isn't assessed by standardized measures (and might result in slightly lower scores since students have moved beyond the tested content). I personally would want c out of the options, (though the earlier point that a bit of "coasting" on the part of teachers might be fine with me if that was what was needed to not burn out in the usual 3-5 years), but current measures --whether looking at growth or not, wouldn't be able to tell me the difference. I don't see much appetite for developing, piloting and implementing qualitatively different measures either as that involves a lot of testing.

[Anonymous]

We care about SAT scores. We care about AP courses. We care about AAP.

Teachers? Honestly, unless they are useless, I don't need a brilliant teacher. I just need someone who's going to get my kid where I need to them go. If they can't, I'll raise hell. Otherwise, I am willing to set it and forget it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We care about SAT scores. We care about AP courses. We care about AAP.

Teachers? Honestly, unless they are useless, I don't need a brilliant teacher. I just need someone who's going to get my kid where I need to them go. If they can't, I'll raise hell. Otherwise, I am willing to set it and forget it.

The things you care about won't just be delivered to you on a platter without a good teacher ingredient. Definitely not in the lower school levels, like AAP. So you should care more about teacher quality. Unless of course you don't mind spending lots of dollars for outside tutoring, which kind of defeats the purpose of school.

[Anonymous]

I'm more underwhelmed by the OP than I am by the majority of enthusiastic teachers at our very good FCPS school, so I'll take them and the kids and families in our pyramid. Thanks for playing.