Better teachers in poor schools-how?

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/obama-administration-tries-to-get-better-teachers-into-nations-poor-classrooms/2014/11/10/f21632ee-6918-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html

Here's a nice can of worms that has been opened.

[Anonymous]

Maybe because the "better parents" are in the rich schools?

[Anonymous]

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?

[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?

No, the rule is not based on the idea that it all depends on the teachers. It's based on the idea that some of it depends on the teachers. Do you disagree with this idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, the rule is not based on the idea that it all depends on the teachers. It's based on the idea that some of it depends on the teachers. Do you disagree with this idea?

Yes and no. Lots of talented teachers give it their best effort, but there is burnout and still teh testing pressure (at least in DC).
The answer may be to incentivize.
As with anything else in life, there needs to be incentives for anyone to take on and stay with a difficult task or any task that takes them away from their current gig.
More money and the promise that test scores will not factor into their performance evaluations. Some sort of alternative measure of student progress: attendance, art work/portfolio, vocabulary building, mental health assessments, etc.
Let's all be honest, lots of kids in our title 1 schools have very different needs that can be measured with an entirely different set of parameters. Set all that straight and then we can talk about test scores.

[Anonymous]

The false assumption is that they know what a good teacher looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, the rule is not based on the idea that it all depends on the teachers. It's based on the idea that some of it depends on the teachers. Do you disagree with this idea?

Yes and no. Lots of talented teachers give it their best effort, but there is burnout and still teh testing pressure (at least in DC).
The answer may be to incentivize.
As with anything else in life, there needs to be incentives for anyone to take on and stay with a difficult task or any task that takes them away from their current gig.
More money and the promise that test scores will not factor into their performance evaluations. Some sort of alternative measure of student progress: attendance, art work/portfolio, vocabulary building, mental health assessments, etc.
Let's all be honest, lots of kids in our title 1 schools have very different needs that can be measured with an entirely different set of parameters. Set all that straight and then we can talk about test scores.

The states are supposed to come up with plans to provide incentives for people to do this. It sounds like you have some good ideas.

[Anonymous]

The false assumption is that they know what a good teacher looks like.

I taught. I've always said that I am for merit pay--as soon as they figure that out! Kind of like porn: you know it when you see it! Can't be measured with bubbles.

[Anonymous]

The false assumption is that they know what a good teacher looks like.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, the rule is not based on the idea that it all depends on the teachers. It's based on the idea that some of it depends on the teachers. Do you disagree with this idea?

Yes and no. Lots of talented teachers give it their best effort, but there is burnout and still teh testing pressure (at least in DC).
The answer may be to incentivize.
As with anything else in life, there needs to be incentives for anyone to take on and stay with a difficult task or any task that takes them away from their current gig.
More money and the promise that test scores will not factor into their performance evaluations. Some sort of alternative measure of student progress: attendance, art work/portfolio, vocabulary building, mental health assessments, etc.
Let's all be honest, lots of kids in our title 1 schools have very different needs that can be measured with an entirely different set of parameters. Set all that straight and then we can talk about test scores.

I teach in a highly impacted HS. I have the VERY high - as in those skimmed from the top who are indeed brilliant. I also have the other end - kids so damaged and with so few skills that nothing - short of a miracle - can bring them to grade level. These kids are reading 7 to 8 grade levels behind.

One question I hear again and again with my low-level kids is "Why do we have to do so much work in class?" I believe it, too, as most teachers with a load like mine burn out. It's easier to show a movie or to pass out an easy worksheet than it is to stretch them/to challenge them.

I'm done after this year.

It's not worth it. I care too much for my own kids and am resentful when I'm up planning and grading instead of spending time with them.

It's a terrible profession these days. My children know NOT to enter education. And if they do, they're on their own with college tuition, as it's a wasted degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, the rule is not based on the idea that it all depends on the teachers. It's based on the idea that some of it depends on the teachers. Do you disagree with this idea?

Yes and no. Lots of talented teachers give it their best effort, but there is burnout and still teh testing pressure (at least in DC).
The answer may be to incentivize.
As with anything else in life, there needs to be incentives for anyone to take on and stay with a difficult task or any task that takes them away from their current gig.
More money and the promise that test scores will not factor into their performance evaluations. Some sort of alternative measure of student progress: attendance, art work/portfolio, vocabulary building, mental health assessments, etc.
Let's all be honest, lots of kids in our title 1 schools have very different needs that can be measured with an entirely different set of parameters. Set all that straight and then we can talk about test scores.

I teach in a highly impacted HS. I have the VERY high - as in those skimmed from the top who are indeed brilliant. I also have the other end - kids so damaged and with so few skills that nothing - short of a miracle - can bring them to grade level. These kids are reading 7 to 8 grade levels behind.

One question I hear again and again with my low-level kids is "Why do we have to do so much work in class?" I believe it, too, as most teachers with a load like mine burn out. It's easier to show a movie or to pass out an easy worksheet than it is to stretch them/to challenge them.

I'm done after this year.

It's not worth it. I care too much for my own kids and am resentful when I'm up planning and grading instead of spending time with them.

It's a terrible profession these days. My children know NOT to enter education. And if they do, they're on their own with college tuition, as it's a wasted degree.

That's sad

I'm in my 2nd year working in early childhood special ed. I taught for a couple years in general education before that.

Teaching is quickly becoming the degree that is not worth getting. I love my kids, and my job (on most days). But between tuition expenses, books, practicums/internships, student teaching, PRAXIS and other teaching tests it's an expensive degree. I had to pay a 450 dollar fee to my student teacher to student teach. PRAXIS tests are 100-200 dollars each, I've taken 6 so far.
Then you try to get a teaching job. Then oh that teaching job in that state requires more classes in that state which you pay for out of your own pocket (for me about 2,000/year for these classes). And more teacher qualification tests. Then your shelling out more money on supplies and working to help these kids. I don't think I'll ever get ahead of my debt and be able to buy a house or anything : /
I started a Gofundme with no hits...not that I expect a handout it's just been hard getting ahead...

On top of the financial worries, often times the kids are from very rough backgrounds or from spoiled backgrounds. Maybe this is primarily in the early grades but I spend a lot of time doing 'parenting' type skills-discipline, dealing with tantrums, brushing teeth, teaching them how to dress/undress themselves, do their shoes, follow simple directions, wash their hands, etc. It's exhausting and so much of it isn't because of disability, it's because there are no expectations at home. I have one student who will tantrum up to an hour screaming, cursing, throwing chairs, furniture...

On top of the money and the kids there's the bureaucracy of it all. Education is being run like a business and by people who know nothing about education and what actually works in the classroom.

I love my job, really! It's just whether the reward outweighs the costs...

Ok, rant over (today was a rough day)

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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 don't think that I have ever read even the most ardent supporter of Common Core standards say, on DCUM, that the Common Core will solve all problems.

[Anonymous]

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).