Great article about education from the NY Times

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP. Let me be a bit more clear.

When I say that I believe all children must be held to the same, grade level benchmarks (unless they are identified as having special needs) -- that is not the same thing as saying I believe all children must be in grade level classrooms, doing grade level work.

You shoudl start wherever the child is, and aim to make as rapid progress as possible with that child; even if you need to give that child one on one intensive tutoring. But you shoudl NEVER change the ultimate benchmark for the child, and say "This child is so far behind, he'll never make grade level expectations". It is fine to have intermediate goals along the way. But the parents should be informed all along the way that the child has not made grade level benchmarks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is nonsense. Especially in math. Last year my school had a student who was at least 2 years behind in math. But we kept this student in the grade level math class. All year we forced this student to sit through lessons that were impossible for the student to do because the student didn't have the requisite skills and knowledge, not due to any developmental delay, but because this student missed that instruction in previous years. No amount of remediation that we provided worked. However, a private afterschool-program that this student attended determined the appropriate level of instruction and provided it. DCPS failed to provide what this student needed because we were using benchmarks that weren't appropriate for this student.

You are proving my point. The child had nothing wrong with his brain. He was perfectly capable of learnig the material and achieving the benchmark. This is evidenced by the fact that when he attended a private tutoring program, he made the gains and achieved the benchmark.

You say that "No amount of remediation that we provided worked". Exactly. That just shows that they remediation you were providing wasn't the right kind and it wasn't effective for that student!

Now imagine if you and the school were allowed to change the benchmarks based on what you thought was appropriate for each student. That student would have been held to a lower benchmark. He would have achieved it, and no outside assistance would have been sought for him! You as a school would never have been forced to admit that your attempts at remediation weren't working. You might not have tried to bbring him up to speed in the first place, if he were meeting benchmarks at a lower expectation.

This particular student made progress but did not master three full grade levels in one year.

I don't think anyone at the school (I don't work there at this time) has admitted that the remediation attempts on behalf of this student didn't work. This student's parent chose the afterschool program. The people running this program weren't worried about benchmarks. They just did what needed to be done. These are my observations and I was not this student's math teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This particular student made progress but did not master three full grade levels in one year.

I don't think anyone at the school (I don't work there at this time) has admitted that the remediation attempts on behalf of this student didn't work. This student's parent chose the afterschool program. The people running this program weren't worried about benchmarks. They just did what needed to be done. These are my observations and I was not this student's math teacher.

Well, not to beat a dead horse, but you sound a bit confused.

First you say that "no amount of remediation worked" but then you say no one admitted that the remediation attempts didn't work.

Very few people expect three years of progress in just one year; it certainly can happen, but a year and a half per year would be a noble goal.

And of COURSE the people running the program were worried about benchmarks. They knew where the child needed to get to, and they knew what to do in order to get him there.

You need to think of benchmarks as the final goal of instruction, not as a daily lesson plan.

If the benchmark for 4th grade math/calculations is "be able to solve 3 digit by 2 digit multiplcation problems" but you have a child who doesn't yet know how to multiply 3 x 5 problems, then you need to provide that remediation first, with appropriate, rapid instruction. You don't go ahead and provide instruction on multi-digit multiplication, just because that's what the grade level benchmark is. But you certainly don't ignore the benchmark -- that's the final goal for the child at that grade level. Youc an't change the bench mark for him, just because he is behind.

If you are a DC public schools teacher (sounds like you might be?) then I have this question for you -- in DC, is a teacher allowed to teach things that aren't benchmarks? If you are being told you may only teach, as in my example, multi-digit multiplication; you may not go back and reteach the earlier concepts, then I can understand your being frustrated with these "benchmarks". However, please understand that the problem is with how the school district is interpreting the term benchmark, not with the term and concept itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're both wrong.

The benchmarks are fine as a guide, but it's silly for us to expect all students to progress at the same time.

Students don't have a problem making inferences. They just make inferences that don't make any sense because they lack the vocabulary and background knowledge. You need both to make appropriate inferences. You need vocabulary and background knowledge to determine the meaning of an unknown word using context clues. If you don't know most of the words in a paragraph, you're not going to be able to do it, no matter how many times a teacher tries to teach you the "skill" of using context clues. Same for making judgements or determining author's purpose, or main idea, etc. We spend too much time and effort trying to teach reading strategies, when what we really need to do is teach more content.

I agree with you 100%. I don't expect students to all be able to progress at the same rate and always be on the same page, with the same instruction.

The more students are behind the benchmarks, the more intensive the help should be given to assist them to achieve the same standards as the other students. In elementary school, this means effective, appropriate remedial instruction, given as early as possible, in small groups, individually if needed; in after school intensive tutoring sessions; in focused, effective summer school sessions; and in making use of every second of the day to get kids the content instruction and vocabulary that they need.

If kids are still far behind by the time they reach high school, then the remediation will be a lot harder and take much longer, unfortunately. But even so -- you don't lower the benchmarks for the students. You should change instruction or provide it in a more intense way.

This is nonsense. Especially in math. Last year my school had a student who was at least 2 years behind in math. But we kept this student in the grade level math class. All year we forced this student to sit through lessons that were impossible for the student to do because the student didn't have the requisite skills and knowledge, not due to any developmental delay, but because this student missed that instruction in previous years. No amount of remediation that we provided worked. However, a private afterschool-program that this student attended determined the appropriate level of instruction and provided it. DCPS failed to provide what this student needed because we were using benchmarks that weren't appropriate for this student.

In reading and other subjects, no amount of remediation is going to make up for huge gaps in vocabulary and background knowledge. We have to start in kindergarten to build up this knowledge gradually. Intensity won't fix this problem. In these cases, the benchmarks are unrealistic and counterproductive.

Thank you! a voice of reason from someone living in reality!

To the other PPs who think that we can save the world, are you at private institutions or with public systems? Also, how many students do you have in a class? I have had as many as 30 students in each class - all at different reading levels, according to their MapR scores.

According to your philosophy, by the end of the year, all of my students will have mastered grade 9 benchmarks for English, correct?

You do realize that in the public system, we're completely unable to revise the curriculum to meet the needs of all students. Indicators are set for each unit per grade. Furthermore, we're driven by state tests, which not only determine AYP but also are the deciding factors as to whether or not our students graduate.

I can throw out all of lingo you'd love to hear (differentiation, reteaching/reassessing, formative/summative assessments, activators/summarizers, wait time). But this is the bottom line: One person cannot possibly do it all in the public system.

So the next time you feel the need to talk about good teaching practices and high expectations, evaluate the situation first before freely handing out advice, as all of our situations are different.

[Anonymous]

I think we can agree to disagree without making a lot of inaccurate inferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular student made progress but did not master three full grade levels in one year.

I don't think anyone at the school (I don't work there at this time) has admitted that the remediation attempts on behalf of this student didn't work. This student's parent chose the afterschool program. The people running this program weren't worried about benchmarks. They just did what needed to be done. These are my observations and I was not this student's math teacher.

Well, not to beat a dead horse, but you sound a bit confused.

First you say that "no amount of remediation worked" but then you say no one admitted that the remediation attempts didn't work.

Very few people expect three years of progress in just one year; it certainly can happen, but a year and a half per year would be a noble goal.

And of COURSE the people running the program were worried about benchmarks. They knew where the child needed to get to, and they knew what to do in order to get him there.

You need to think of benchmarks as the final goal of instruction, not as a daily lesson plan.

If the benchmark for 4th grade math/calculations is "be able to solve 3 digit by 2 digit multiplcation problems" but you have a child who doesn't yet know how to multiply 3 x 5 problems, then you need to provide that remediation first, with appropriate, rapid instruction. You don't go ahead and provide instruction on multi-digit multiplication, just because that's what the grade level benchmark is. But you certainly don't ignore the benchmark -- that's the final goal for the child at that grade level. Youc an't change the bench mark for him, just because he is behind.

If you are a DC public schools teacher (sounds like you might be?) then I have this question for you -- in DC, is a teacher allowed to teach things that aren't benchmarks? If you are being told you may only teach, as in my example, multi-digit multiplication; you may not go back and reteach the earlier concepts, then I can understand your being frustrated with these "benchmarks". However, please understand that the problem is with how the school district is interpreting the term benchmark, not with the term and concept itself.

PP, I do believe that DC public teacher understands the importance of process and sequence as related to instruction. We pre-assess. Then we group (differentiation by level, by product, etc.). Finally, we assess again (formative) to measure where the students are. If some are still behind, we reteach and reassess until s/he is up to speed. At least we try to.

However, as I mentioned earlier, this process is impossible to follow given certain circumstances - too many students in a classroom, spotty attendance, FARMs rate (as in poverty level - ever try teaching students who haven't eaten a meal since the day before?), shoddy materials, few resources. . . . I could go on and on.

Preach about your educational theory all you like, but once you find yourself in a tough situation, your academic textbooks mean nothing.

Who's posting on this forum anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you! a voice of reason from someone living in reality!

To the other PPs who think that we can save the world, are you at private institutions or with public systems? Also, how many students do you have in a class? I have had as many as 30 students in each class - all at different reading levels, according to their MapR scores.

According to your philosophy, by the end of the year, all of my students will have mastered grade 9 benchmarks for English, correct?

No, certainly not! That is the goal, but they may well not make it. And I certainly don't blame you, an indiviual teacher. But I do blame the school district that let kids get that far behind.

But my overall point is that you can NOT change the benchmarks for those 9th graders just because they are behind when they start. You can't say, "For kids on grade level, a passing score will be reading and writing on grade level. But you kids who are way behind in grade level, a passing score is much lower work, because you showed improvement."

Kids who are below the standard and do not meet the benchmark need remediation, yes, extra help, yes, summer school, yes, private tutoring, yes. But you don't change the benchmarks just because they are behind.

You do realize that in the public system, we're completely unable to revise the curriculum to meet the needs of all students. Indicators are set for each unit per grade. Furthermore, we're driven by state tests, which not only determine AYP but also are the deciding factors as to whether or not our students graduate.

I do realize that. And the state is doing its job -- they are NOT lowing the benchmarks for kids who are behind. And that's a good thing. Schools have for far too long just passed on kids (with passing grades) who were on, two, or more years below grade level. FOr YEARS. These kids were getting As and Bs in English 9 and yet sometimes they could barely read. Or Bs in Algebra and yet they were really doing basic arithmatic.

I can throw out all of lingo you'd love to hear (differentiation, reteaching/reassessing, formative/summative assessments, activators/summarizers, wait time). But this is the bottom line: One person cannot possibly do it all in the public system.

You seem to be taking this personally, and I really don't intend it to be that way. I'm not suggesting any one teacher can bring all the kids up to grade level in a year! I'm just saying, again, you don't change the benchmarks because a child is behind. You cahneg instruction to be able to bring the child to the benchmark. And no, you can't do it alone, in a class of 30 students.

So the next time you feel the need to talk about good teaching practices and high expectations, evaluate the situation first before freely handing out advice, as all of our situations are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we can agree to disagree without making a lot of inaccurate inferences.

I agree, but I hate making inferences regarding your post when you haven't supplied evidence.

To which posts are your referring, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PP, I do believe that DC public teacher understands the importance of process and sequence as related to instruction. We pre-assess. Then we group (differentiation by level, by product, etc.). Finally, we assess again (formative) to measure where the students are. If some are still behind, we reteach and reassess until s/he is up to speed. At least we try to.

However, as I mentioned earlier, this process is impossible to follow given certain circumstances - too many students in a classroom, spotty attendance, FARMs rate (as in poverty level - ever try teaching students who haven't eaten a meal since the day before?), shoddy materials, few resources. . . . I could go on and on.

Preach about your educational theory all you like, but once you find yourself in a tough situation, your academic textbooks mean nothing.

Who's posting on this forum anyway?

I'm a public school teacher with 10 years experience. And I work primarily with children who are 3 to 5 years below grade level, and are very very poor. So I know what I am talking about; this isn't academic theory.

I also have long experience of working with teachers who claim that they HAVE to lower the standards for their FARMS kids, their ESOL kids, and so on. I think that is a big mistake. Keep standards att grade level, and bring children up to them. It takes the whole school, and it might ttake years. But you don't lower the bar.

[Anonymous]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/good-teaching


Other teachers I interviewed spent most of our time complaining. “With the testing and the responsibility and keeping up with the behavior reports and the data, it has gotten so much harder over the years,” said one fourth-grade teacher at Kimball, the same school where Mr. Taylor teaches. “It’s more work than it should be. They don’t give us the time to be creative.”

A 23-year veteran who earns more than $80,000 a year, this teacher has a warm manner, and her classroom is bright and neat. She paid for the kids’ whiteboards, the clock, and the DVD player herself. But she seems to have given up on the kids’ prospects in a way that Mr. Taylor has not. “The kids in Northwest [D.C.] go on trips to France, on cruises. They go places and their parents talk to them and take them to the library,” she says one fall afternoon between classes. “Our parents on this side don’t have the know-how to raise their children. They’re not sure what it takes for their child to make it.”

When her fourth-grade students entered her class last school year, 66 percent were scoring at or above grade level in reading. After a year in her class, only 44 percent scored at grade level, and none scored above. Her students performed worse than fourth-graders with similar incoming scores in other low-income D.C. schools. For decades, education researchers blamed kids and their home life for their failure to learn. Now, given the data coming out of classrooms like Mr. Taylor’s, those arguments are harder to take. Poverty matters enormously. But teachers all over the country are moving poor kids forward anyway, even as the class next door stagnates. “At the end of the day,” says Timothy Daly at the New Teacher Project, “it’s the mind-set that teachers need—a kind of relentless approach to the problem.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can agree to disagree without making a lot of inaccurate inferences.

I agree, but I hate making inferences regarding your post when you haven't supplied evidence.

To which posts are your referring, PP?

I was referring to the "benchmark" poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/good-teaching


Other teachers I interviewed spent most of our time complaining. “With the testing and the responsibility and keeping up with the behavior reports and the data, it has gotten so much harder over the years,” said one fourth-grade teacher at Kimball, the same school where Mr. Taylor teaches. “It’s more work than it should be. They don’t give us the time to be creative.”

A 23-year veteran who earns more than $80,000 a year, this teacher has a warm manner, and her classroom is bright and neat. She paid for the kids’ whiteboards, the clock, and the DVD player herself. But she seems to have given up on the kids’ prospects in a way that Mr. Taylor has not. “The kids in Northwest [D.C.] go on trips to France, on cruises. They go places and their parents talk to them and take them to the library,” she says one fall afternoon between classes. “Our parents on this side don’t have the know-how to raise their children. They’re not sure what it takes for their child to make it.”

When her fourth-grade students entered her class last school year, 66 percent were scoring at or above grade level in reading. After a year in her class, only 44 percent scored at grade level, and none scored above. Her students performed worse than fourth-graders with similar incoming scores in other low-income D.C. schools. For decades, education researchers blamed kids and their home life for their failure to learn. Now, given the data coming out of classrooms like Mr. Taylor’s, those arguments are harder to take. Poverty matters enormously. But teachers all over the country are moving poor kids forward anyway, even as the class next door stagnates. “At the end of the day,” says Timothy Daly at the New Teacher Project, “it’s the mind-set that teachers need—a kind of relentless approach to the problem.”

So why didn't this magical wishful thinking work at Shaw Middle School, where all the teachers had high expectations?

[Anonymous]

“At the end of the day,” says Timothy Daly at the New Teacher Project, “it’s the mind-set that teachers need—a kind of relentless approach to the problem.”

Sounds like a rather joyless approach to education. Not what I have ever wanted for a child of mine. I guess we feel OK to do that to other people's children.

[Anonymous]

To get back to the original topic, I loved this article and recognized many of the elements that she mentions in my kids' progressive school. In fact, my fifth grader this fall did "build a contraption" to learn the physics/machines part of their science curriculum. She loved it. They do a ton of reading what they choose to read, do creative writing projects about subjects the kids like, reenacted a battle in history/social studies and filmed it, etc. My third grader uses her math skills and writing skills in projects like running the school's holiday gift shop (they practice their math so that they are ready to be cashiers and make the correct change, for example). Reading and telling stories (sharing) is a big part of the learning and the kids all love DEAR (drop everything and read) time. They even started a voluntary class "book club" during lunch time where kids could talk about books they have been reading outside of school. I hope that my kids will have the skills that Englel mentions before they leave elementary school and still enjoy the process of learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


By the end of 6th grade I want every child to have at least hear of World War I, the Civil War, the Crusades, and Charlemagne; to know the different animal kingdoms and the difference between algae, fungi, and bacteria; to be able to locate the Fertile Crescent on a map and know why it was important in history; to locate mountains, rivers, continents, and states; to have a basic understanding of simple machines, gravity and and electrictity; to know the difference between a hot desert and a cold desert and to locate them on a map, and so on. None of these facts are boring and kids fdont' need to discover the information on their own. They are inherently interesting, and we as teachers are adults with knowledge about our world and the story of our people and the way our world works. We should pass that information on, not wait for kids to learn to discover what is interesting to them.

I'm with you. You should check out the Core Knowledge thread on this site.