when schools focus on the wrong things (from a teacher)

[Anonymous]

Do you just tell your boss what to do and how to do it? Sheesh.

Yes. I do. I make suggestions and we have discussions. I even have the same discussions with the owner of the company although I have to have those tactfully. I don't bring up issues all the time and I realize change takes time. Some things aren't changed or aren't changed the 2nd, 3rd, or even 10th time and you have to accept, keep pushing, or move on. It's called being a professional. This is not a new idea. Here's a video from 1949 that talks about keeping a job and it actually mentions suggestions from employees to the employer and how to do it correctly and incorrectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxOLdKX3BTQ

[Anonymous]

And if you can't tell your boss what you think might be an improvement on a meeting or whatever issue comes up, I don't see the point of meeting on collaboration or teaching children how to collaborate. Collaboration has to be more than just lateral collaboration in order to be effective on solving problems.

[Anonymous]

My best advice? Learn the jargon of the month. Parrot it back. Look like a good soldier. See if there’s anything helpful or usable— sometimes there is. Meanwhile, during stupid meetings, always have a notebook in hand that you appear to be using to take notes, but are actually using to organize your to-dos, jot down things you noticed about your kids that day, plan out next week.

Take the stuff you were already doing (as long as it was working well for your kids) and repackage it as needed when the winds shift. Multiple intelligences used to be the big thing, and now it’s differentiated instruction and “multiple pathways to learning?” A few tweaks to my Google docs and I’m on board.

It sucks. But when it comes down to it, I close my classroom door and I’m the one calling the shots, for better or worse. So far, the kids make it worth my while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if you can't tell your boss what you think might be an improvement on a meeting or whatever issue comes up, I don't see the point of meeting on collaboration or teaching children how to collaborate. Collaboration has to be more than just lateral collaboration in order to be effective on solving problems.

That's the problem--it's nothing that's actually meaningful. It's in name only so it can be documented that it has been done and boxes can be checked. That's why it's a complete waste of time. If you want it to be meaningful, let it be teacher led. Ensure that the ESOL and Special Ed. teachers have planning time in their schedules at the same time as the classroom teachers of the kids they service so they can discuss shared students and co-plan effective lessons. That is meaningful collaboration. Completing a mandated template form in a fishbowl environment with the staff development teacher, reading specialist, math content coach and assistant principal staring at you is not meaningful collaboration. But the box is checked so that's all that matters, right? -OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ummm, where to start?
I'm a first grade teacher. Here is a list of just some of the assessments my students take each year:
*Easy CBM math (yes computer), 3 x a year to all kids 1:1. Weekly progress monitoring 1:1 to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone.
*Easy CBM reading (part computer, part person based) given 1:1 3x a year. a) phonics sounds, b) word segmentation c) word reading d) passage fluency. Weekly progress monitoring to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone.
*Sight word testing on 136 words, 3x a year benchmark. Weekly progress monitoring to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone. Given 1:1
* Fountas and Pinnell running records. An intensive reading test where we measure miscues, comprehension, a written response and fluency. It takes about 30-45 per kid and in my district teachers have to do this while the entire rest of the class is working independently. This happens 3x a year for everyone and then another 3-6x a year per kid based on need. Given 1:1
*writing opinion paragraph benchmarks, 3x a year. Plus monthly to assess progress for instruction. Given whole group
* math unit tests. About 8 times a year. Quizzes another 6-8 times a year. Given whole group
*Access testing for ESL students 1x a year. Given in small groups

This is less than teachers used to do. It is not more. Also most of those reading tests that take so long are being taken out of school districts in favor of scantron tests after teachers have been complaining - see they were effective. I doubt your school system will have that for much longer. Do you remember the basal reading books? Teachers would have to grade reading responses weekly for those. They don't have to do that anymore. It was like grading one of those Fountas Pinnell tests weekly.

8 times a year tests on math? Again, do you remember weekly math tests plus cumulative tests for each unit? I do.

I'm not sure what is involved with weekly progress monitoring, however teachers have been monitoring progress weekly for years. If that is done ineffectively, that is an issue, but it is the process of it, not the task itself.


Okay so obviously you are not a teacher. F&P testing is the gold standard of reading assessments and will NEVER, EVER be replaced by "scantron" testing (which btw is obsolete)....what F&P offers and scantron type tests (again, is this 1980?) offer are completely different. It is like the difference between a full MRI and a doctor simply looking in your ears. Also, you simply cannot compare F&P to old basal reading tests. First of all, basal reading tests were not effective and were a terribly poor measure of student learning. Second, F&P's have to be given one kid at a time. You have to do that during class time. 30-45 minutes per kid times 21 kids times 3 times a year minimum.....and then a similar running record done once a month in between. Please, please, please.....you make yourself look ignorant when you talk about things you know nothing about beyond your own experience as a child. I'm pulling 60 hour weeks here sweetheart, with a graduate degree and all kinds of leadership experience under my belt. You are out of your league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you can't tell your boss what you think might be an improvement on a meeting or whatever issue comes up, I don't see the point of meeting on collaboration or teaching children how to collaborate. Collaboration has to be more than just lateral collaboration in order to be effective on solving problems.

That's the problem--it's nothing that's actually meaningful. It's in name only so it can be documented that it has been done and boxes can be checked. That's why it's a complete waste of time. If you want it to be meaningful, let it be teacher led. Ensure that the ESOL and Special Ed. teachers have planning time in their schedules at the same time as the classroom teachers of the kids they service so they can discuss shared students and co-plan effective lessons. That is meaningful collaboration. Completing a mandated template form in a fishbowl environment with the staff development teacher, reading specialist, math content coach and assistant principal staring at you is not meaningful collaboration. But the box is checked so that's all that matters, right? -OP

You don't have to tell me that or anyone here. You have to tell your principal that and the other teachers and get them to agree. Did you watch the video? It has to come through initiative and suggestion, not complaint.

I also think you are wrong that outside ideas can't be meaningful. They just can't be meaningful without refinement and buy in or dismissal. They are a "basal resource" to use a school term. They are a template to start from. The refinement and buy in or dismissal has to come from the people who work there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummm, where to start?
I'm a first grade teacher. Here is a list of just some of the assessments my students take each year:
*Easy CBM math (yes computer), 3 x a year to all kids 1:1. Weekly progress monitoring 1:1 to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone.
*Easy CBM reading (part computer, part person based) given 1:1 3x a year. a) phonics sounds, b) word segmentation c) word reading d) passage fluency. Weekly progress monitoring to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone.
*Sight word testing on 136 words, 3x a year benchmark. Weekly progress monitoring to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone. Given 1:1
* Fountas and Pinnell running records. An intensive reading test where we measure miscues, comprehension, a written response and fluency. It takes about 30-45 per kid and in my district teachers have to do this while the entire rest of the class is working independently. This happens 3x a year for everyone and then another 3-6x a year per kid based on need. Given 1:1
*writing opinion paragraph benchmarks, 3x a year. Plus monthly to assess progress for instruction. Given whole group
* math unit tests. About 8 times a year. Quizzes another 6-8 times a year. Given whole group
*Access testing for ESL students 1x a year. Given in small groups

This is less than teachers used to do. It is not more. Also most of those reading tests that take so long are being taken out of school districts in favor of scantron tests after teachers have been complaining - see they were effective. I doubt your school system will have that for much longer. Do you remember the basal reading books? Teachers would have to grade reading responses weekly for those. They don't have to do that anymore. It was like grading one of those Fountas Pinnell tests weekly.

8 times a year tests on math? Again, do you remember weekly math tests plus cumulative tests for each unit? I do.

I'm not sure what is involved with weekly progress monitoring, however teachers have been monitoring progress weekly for years. If that is done ineffectively, that is an issue, but it is the process of it, not the task itself.


Okay so obviously you are not a teacher. F&P testing is the gold standard of reading assessments and will NEVER, EVER be replaced by "scantron" testing (which btw is obsolete)....what F&P offers and scantron type tests (again, is this 1980?) offer are completely different. It is like the difference between a full MRI and a doctor simply looking in your ears. Also, you simply cannot compare F&P to old basal reading tests. First of all, basal reading tests were not effective and were a terribly poor measure of student learning. Second, F&P's have to be given one kid at a time. You have to do that during class time. 30-45 minutes per kid times 21 kids times 3 times a year minimum.....and then a similar running record done once a month in between. Please, please, please.....you make yourself look ignorant when you talk about things you know nothing about beyond your own experience as a child. I'm pulling 60 hour weeks here sweetheart, with a graduate degree and all kinds of leadership experience under my belt. You are out of your league.

FCPS used to use DRA and now they are using a scantron test unless the child is far behind. Just an example of a very large system not using the "gold standard" reading test. I already identified myself as a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you can't tell your boss what you think might be an improvement on a meeting or whatever issue comes up, I don't see the point of meeting on collaboration or teaching children how to collaborate. Collaboration has to be more than just lateral collaboration in order to be effective on solving problems.

That's the problem--it's nothing that's actually meaningful. It's in name only so it can be documented that it has been done and boxes can be checked. That's why it's a complete waste of time. If you want it to be meaningful, let it be teacher led. Ensure that the ESOL and Special Ed. teachers have planning time in their schedules at the same time as the classroom teachers of the kids they service so they can discuss shared students and co-plan effective lessons. That is meaningful collaboration. Completing a mandated template form in a fishbowl environment with the staff development teacher, reading specialist, math content coach and assistant principal staring at you is not meaningful collaboration. But the box is checked so that's all that matters, right? -OP

You don't have to tell me that or anyone here. You have to tell your principal that and the other teachers and get them to agree. Did you watch the video? It has to come through initiative and suggestion, not complaint.

I also think you are wrong that outside ideas can't be meaningful. They just can't be meaningful without refinement and buy in or dismissal. They are a "basal resource" to use a school term. They are a template to start from. The refinement and buy in or dismissal has to come from the people who work there.

That's not the way it works. These are initiatives mandated by central office, not just the principal or other local school admin. The principal doesn't really have a say in this unless they are at a very high SES school where test scores are high no matter what. They are just required to provide evidence that these central office mandates are occurring in their schools, and the only way a principal will stand up to central office is if their scores are high year in and year out due to a high SES population of students.

[Anonymous]

Please stop now. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. How about we walk into your office and tell you how you should do your job?
You sound really ignorant and you probably should exit the thread at this point.

Anonymous wrote:Ummm, where to start?
I'm a first grade teacher. Here is a list of just some of the assessments my students take each year:
*Easy CBM math (yes computer), 3 x a year to all kids 1:1. Weekly progress monitoring 1:1 to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone.
*Easy CBM reading (part computer, part person based) given 1:1 3x a year. a) phonics sounds, b) word segmentation c) word reading d) passage fluency. Weekly progress monitoring to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone.
*Sight word testing on 136 words, 3x a year benchmark. Weekly progress monitoring to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone. Given 1:1
* Fountas and Pinnell running records. An intensive reading test where we measure miscues, comprehension, a written response and fluency. It takes about 30-45 per kid and in my district teachers have to do this while the entire rest of the class is working independently. This happens 3x a year for everyone and then another 3-6x a year per kid based on need. Given 1:1
*writing opinion paragraph benchmarks, 3x a year. Plus monthly to assess progress for instruction. Given whole group
* math unit tests. About 8 times a year. Quizzes another 6-8 times a year. Given whole group
*Access testing for ESL students 1x a year. Given in small groups

This is less than teachers used to do. It is not more. Also most of those reading tests that take so long are being taken out of school districts in favor of scantron tests after teachers have been complaining - see they were effective. I doubt your school system will have that for much longer. Do you remember the basal reading books? Teachers would have to grade reading responses weekly for those. They don't have to do that anymore. It was like grading one of those Fountas Pinnell tests weekly.

8 times a year tests on math? Again, do you remember weekly math tests plus cumulative tests for each unit? I do.

I'm not sure what is involved with weekly progress monitoring, however teachers have been monitoring progress weekly for years. If that is done ineffectively, that is an issue, but it is the process of it, not the task itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ummm, where to start?
I'm a first grade teacher. Here is a list of just some of the assessments my students take each year:
*Easy CBM math (yes computer), 3 x a year to all kids 1:1. Weekly progress monitoring 1:1 to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone.
*Easy CBM reading (part computer, part person based) given 1:1 3x a year. a) phonics sounds, b) word segmentation c) word reading d) passage fluency. Weekly progress monitoring to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone.
*Sight word testing on 136 words, 3x a year benchmark. Weekly progress monitoring to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone. Given 1:1
* Fountas and Pinnell running records. An intensive reading test where we measure miscues, comprehension, a written response and fluency. It takes about 30-45 per kid and in my district teachers have to do this while the entire rest of the class is working independently. This happens 3x a year for everyone and then another 3-6x a year per kid based on need. Given 1:1
*writing opinion paragraph benchmarks, 3x a year. Plus monthly to assess progress for instruction. Given whole group
* math unit tests. About 8 times a year. Quizzes another 6-8 times a year. Given whole group
*Access testing for ESL students 1x a year. Given in small groups

This is less than teachers used to do. It is not more. Also most of those reading tests that take so long are being taken out of school districts in favor of scantron tests after teachers have been complaining - see they were effective. I doubt your school system will have that for much longer. Do you remember the basal reading books? Teachers would have to grade reading responses weekly for those. They don't have to do that anymore. It was like grading one of those Fountas Pinnell tests weekly.

8 times a year tests on math? Again, do you remember weekly math tests plus cumulative tests for each unit? I do.

I'm not sure what is involved with weekly progress monitoring, however teachers have been monitoring progress weekly for years. If that is done ineffectively, that is an issue, but it is the process of it, not the task itself.

reply sounds like it was written by an administrator.

Do you know the difference in the old unit tests and the new computer generated tests? The teacher graded them and saw where the problems were herself/himself rather than reading a computer sheet. Sure, it may have taken time--but, the information meant more. A standardized test from time to time could keep you on track, as well. However, these computer printouts are also used by some administrators to rate teachers.

[Anonymous]

[b]
As it has already been pointed out you clearly work in a field where your opinion is respected. It makes a difference. Hence, teachers have unions so perhaps you can just forward your link over to the local teacher's unions since they obviously don't know any of this. This is very condescending and just drives home the point.

Anonymous wrote:Do you just tell your boss what to do and how to do it? Sheesh.

Yes. I do. I make suggestions and we have discussions. I even have the same discussions with the owner of the company although I have to have those tactfully. I don't bring up issues all the time and I realize change takes time. Some things aren't changed or aren't changed the 2nd, 3rd, or even 10th time and you have to accept, keep pushing, or move on. It's called being a professional. This is not a new idea. Here's a video from 1949 that talks about keeping a job and it actually mentions suggestions from employees to the employer and how to do it correctly and incorrectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxOLdKX3BTQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you can't tell your boss what you think might be an improvement on a meeting or whatever issue comes up, I don't see the point of meeting on collaboration or teaching children how to collaborate. Collaboration has to be more than just lateral collaboration in order to be effective on solving problems.

That's the problem--it's nothing that's actually meaningful. It's in name only so it can be documented that it has been done and boxes can be checked. That's why it's a complete waste of time. If you want it to be meaningful, let it be teacher led. Ensure that the ESOL and Special Ed. teachers have planning time in their schedules at the same time as the classroom teachers of the kids they service so they can discuss shared students and co-plan effective lessons. That is meaningful collaboration. Completing a mandated template form in a fishbowl environment with the staff development teacher, reading specialist, math content coach and assistant principal staring at you is not meaningful collaboration. But the box is checked so that's all that matters, right? -OP

You don't have to tell me that or anyone here. You have to tell your principal that and the other teachers and get them to agree. Did you watch the video? It has to come through initiative and suggestion, not complaint.

I also think you are wrong that outside ideas can't be meaningful. They just can't be meaningful without refinement and buy in or dismissal. They are a "basal resource" to use a school term. They are a template to start from. The refinement and buy in or dismissal has to come from the people who work there.

That's not the way it works. These are initiatives mandated by central office, not just the principal or other local school admin. The principal doesn't really have a say in this unless they are at a very high SES school where test scores are high no matter what. They are just required to provide evidence that these central office mandates are occurring in their schools, and the only way a principal will stand up to central office is if their scores are high year in and year out due to a high SES population of students.

This is so true. I've worked at both high SES and high FARMS schools and at the high SES schools the principal could ignore the central office mandates because central office wasn't breathing down their neck. They had leeway, even if they/their staff hadn't actually "earned" it since the kids could pass the standardized tests with very little classroom instruction. In the high FARMs schools. the principal was a stickler for every single thing central office said we had to do, and it was almost like they believed if we followed every suggested staff development technique handed down by central office then the scores would magically increase. They would get very upset if anything wasn't followed through "with fidelity", even if it was clear that it was a time sucking BS initiative. The principals in high SES schools have MUCH more leeway and the staff typically has to do much less of this BS than staff at low SES schools.

[Anonymous]

Sigh. No. Just no. This is clearly the wrong thread for you to join in the discussion. I think you should just observe and try to follow along.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummm, where to start?
I'm a first grade teacher. Here is a list of just some of the assessments my students take each year:
*Easy CBM math (yes computer), 3 x a year to all kids 1:1. Weekly progress monitoring 1:1 to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone.
*Easy CBM reading (part computer, part person based) given 1:1 3x a year. a) phonics sounds, b) word segmentation c) word reading d) passage fluency. Weekly progress monitoring to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone.
*Sight word testing on 136 words, 3x a year benchmark. Weekly progress monitoring to any kid severely behind, bi-weekly to kids somewhat behind, monthly to everyone. Given 1:1
* Fountas and Pinnell running records. An intensive reading test where we measure miscues, comprehension, a written response and fluency. It takes about 30-45 per kid and in my district teachers have to do this while the entire rest of the class is working independently. This happens 3x a year for everyone and then another 3-6x a year per kid based on need. Given 1:1
*writing opinion paragraph benchmarks, 3x a year. Plus monthly to assess progress for instruction. Given whole group
* math unit tests. About 8 times a year. Quizzes another 6-8 times a year. Given whole group
*Access testing for ESL students 1x a year. Given in small groups

This is less than teachers used to do. It is not more. Also most of those reading tests that take so long are being taken out of school districts in favor of scantron tests after teachers have been complaining - see they were effective. I doubt your school system will have that for much longer. Do you remember the basal reading books? Teachers would have to grade reading responses weekly for those. They don't have to do that anymore. It was like grading one of those Fountas Pinnell tests weekly.

8 times a year tests on math? Again, do you remember weekly math tests plus cumulative tests for each unit? I do.

I'm not sure what is involved with weekly progress monitoring, however teachers have been monitoring progress weekly for years. If that is done ineffectively, that is an issue, but it is the process of it, not the task itself.


Okay so obviously you are not a teacher. F&P testing is the gold standard of reading assessments and will NEVER, EVER be replaced by "scantron" testing (which btw is obsolete)....what F&P offers and scantron type tests (again, is this 1980?) offer are completely different. It is like the difference between a full MRI and a doctor simply looking in your ears. Also, you simply cannot compare F&P to old basal reading tests. First of all, basal reading tests were not effective and were a terribly poor measure of student learning. Second, F&P's have to be given one kid at a time. You have to do that during class time. 30-45 minutes per kid times 21 kids times 3 times a year minimum.....and then a similar running record done once a month in between. Please, please, please.....you make yourself look ignorant when you talk about things you know nothing about beyond your own experience as a child. I'm pulling 60 hour weeks here sweetheart, with a graduate degree and all kinds of leadership experience under my belt. You are out of your league.

FCPS used to use DRA and now they are using a scantron test unless the child is far behind. Just an example of a very large system not using the "gold standard" reading test. I already identified myself as a parent.

[Anonymous]

I posted about having to need a sub for my meeting yesterday. We talked about new quarterly writing assessments we now have to do. When the teachers asked the head of the district how this data will be use (we have to enter the score for each question by hand; no scantron), she said she didn't know. She said her higher ups told her we all had to do it. Okaaaaay. It took me probably 5-6 hours to enter this information for the first quarter. So instead of planning for my students, I am entering scores for no reason other than because we have to. Makes no sense. If it did make sense, my district wouldn't be interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you can't tell your boss what you think might be an improvement on a meeting or whatever issue comes up, I don't see the point of meeting on collaboration or teaching children how to collaborate. Collaboration has to be more than just lateral collaboration in order to be effective on solving problems.

That's the problem--it's nothing that's actually meaningful. It's in name only so it can be documented that it has been done and boxes can be checked. That's why it's a complete waste of time. If you want it to be meaningful, let it be teacher led. Ensure that the ESOL and Special Ed. teachers have planning time in their schedules at the same time as the classroom teachers of the kids they service so they can discuss shared students and co-plan effective lessons. That is meaningful collaboration. Completing a mandated template form in a fishbowl environment with the staff development teacher, reading specialist, math content coach and assistant principal staring at you is not meaningful collaboration. But the box is checked so that's all that matters, right? -OP

You don't have to tell me that or anyone here. You have to tell your principal that and the other teachers and get them to agree. Did you watch the video? It has to come through initiative and suggestion, not complaint.

I also think you are wrong that outside ideas can't be meaningful. They just can't be meaningful without refinement and buy in or dismissal. They are a "basal resource" to use a school term. They are a template to start from. The refinement and buy in or dismissal has to come from the people who work there.

That's not the way it works. These are initiatives mandated by central office, not just the principal or other local school admin. The principal doesn't really have a say in this unless they are at a very high SES school where test scores are high no matter what. They are just required to provide evidence that these central office mandates are occurring in their schools, and the only way a principal will stand up to central office is if their scores are high year in and year out due to a high SES population of students.

There are initiatives mandated or requested by every reasonably large company. Do you think GE has only one layer of admin? They still expect initiative from their employees.