To the parents in "good schools"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that when we as a country started using testing as a measure of what is a good school everything else went out of the window.

I have kids in a "good" school in FCPS. And OP's description is spot on. Yes, during open houses, teachers will say they don't believe in tons of homework, but suddenly when an ECART occurs, we get worksheets and recommendations that we supplement our kids' learning because they aren't getting it in class. When I had a kid in AAP, I got e-mails explaining that the expectation is that he would know all of his times tables before the year started, so I might want to either teach him over the summer or get a tutor. It's frustrating.

While the kids are great peers, I do wonder if there is something to what OP said. Are we complacent? Do we accept our "good" schools, "good" SAT scores, etc. because our property values are tied to this?

One check on all of this has been the PTA. We've had horrible principals literally run back to the Gatehouse because the PTA was able to mobilize. So, there's that. But I do see a lot of what OP is saying to be true. But I wonder...do we even care?

Honestly what you describe is what I was looking for. Sounds like your teachers aren’t teaching to the test, and are creating a real curriculum. That sounds good to me.

This is the other reason why "good schools" aren't making sure kids are learning. That would be too old fashioned for many parents in good schools so it's just easier especially in elementary to have kids work on creative projects with no set measured goal and if they don't understand basics, the teachers and principals can just say, "well so and so was able to get this, so perhaps it's your child or you". It's never about the actual child's needs.

This is actually what I want more of for my kids so I fit with your view of parent's perspective. "Set measured goals" are often too reductive and often not what matters most in learning--but rather what can be reliably measured and is appropriate across a large group of students. Fine for what it is, but a limited education. I would prefer the teachers to focus their energies on how to find competent ways of judging complex performances that vary--much like what happens at IB, at the university level, and life.But There are criteria--but not perfectly measured goals. For the basics, I think set measured goals are good. But like a good portion of educated families, my kids entered K reading and doing math several years above grade level and have continued on without hitches. I'm not worried about their ability to master the basics.

I *would* prefer more competent math instruction--what I see happening is the worst of both worlds--too much rote practice on simple skills that are tested by SOL and then not enough thoughtful support in the deeper math investigations. Other countries have gotten math instruction down much better than we have in the US and we could learn a lot--but we don't attract enough math inclined adults to teach at the elementary level here so it's hard to import directly. I actually think students would do better if something like 3 teachers were hired in each elementary school to teach math to all the grades--much like an art or music specialist--and the rest of the math practice was just through computer adapted support.

Well I have to disagree. My child is now in a computer class and the teacher gives a list of 10 or things you can do to get an A for each project and the projects are quick so you don't have weeks to figure them out. Maybe there are five more very vague goals to get a higher grade if the kids want to be very creative. Some of the 10 goals though are creative goals such as create an imaginary story line as part of your project. It works, everyone knows what to do and the projects are just if not more creative and more importantly to the point of the project than the ones we saw with a different teacher where the kids were just floundering and talking and not getting anywhere because of no clear direction. Time and again, we saw these creative vague questions being asked of the kids and the kids having no direction how to achieve anything remotely creative or helpful to answering the question. The kids also get to do more projects with some direction because everyone is on task and there is a set due date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a moment now in between waiting for kids at different sports, but I wanted to write a post to maybe spur a real discussion.

I taught in FCPS for over 10 years. The first ten I worked in a high poverty, high ESOL school. It was an amazing experience. I learned so much as a teacher. I was constantly challenged and I was constantly pushed to come up with ways to reach our kids. I still remember the day when a kid I taught who spoke no English told me she got into TJ. This is why I love teaching. The school had a high turnover because it was a tough place to teach. They had a lot of people who used it to get into the system and then ran to schools where student performance wasn't an issue.

Well, life happened. I normally worked 12 hour days during the school year and usually spent Sunday afternoons planning for Monday. I had a baby. And another one. And I don't live near our school, so I decided to transfer to a new school closer to where we live. It's one of those affluent schools the SOL pass rates are so high no one even blinks an eye.

And the past few years has been easy. The kids are great (because I love kids and these kids are awesome too). The parents are responsive in a way that blows my mind. I send a note for supplies and am given tons. It's night and day. And I really love the community. These are good people.

But they deserve better. And by that I mean we coast. I will give an example. I had a teacher in my grade mention that her kids were not getting a math issue. I offered ten different ways to teach it beyond the default pacing guide and she shrugged and said she's sending home some worksheets and a note. The parents will either handle it or get the kids tutoring.

It hit me that these people who are spending so much money to live around here, who care so deeply, and who tout our school as amazing. It's not us. It's them. I don't know what to do that. Anyway, sorry for the vent, but if anyone feels this way, it might make me feel less bonkers.

I'm curious, OP. Having experienced both environments, which do you think is the better recipe for a typical UMC child to succeed: 1) Wealthy school, mostly English-speaking, large/well-funded PTA, motivated kids, but over-crowded classes and so-so teaching/advocacy OR 2) Title I school, lots of ESOL kids, small/under-resourced PTA, but small classes and great teaching/advocacy? For the sake of argument, let's assume no special parental supplementation in either scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that when we as a country started using testing as a measure of what is a good school everything else went out of the window.

I have kids in a "good" school in FCPS. And OP's description is spot on. Yes, during open houses, teachers will say they don't believe in tons of homework, but suddenly when an ECART occurs, we get worksheets and recommendations that we supplement our kids' learning because they aren't getting it in class. When I had a kid in AAP, I got e-mails explaining that the expectation is that he would know all of his times tables before the year started, so I might want to either teach him over the summer or get a tutor. It's frustrating.

While the kids are great peers, I do wonder if there is something to what OP said. Are we complacent? Do we accept our "good" schools, "good" SAT scores, etc. because our property values are tied to this?

One check on all of this has been the PTA. We've had horrible principals literally run back to the Gatehouse because the PTA was able to mobilize. So, there's that. But I do see a lot of what OP is saying to be true. But I wonder...do we even care?

Honestly what you describe is what I was looking for. Sounds like your teachers aren’t teaching to the test, and are creating a real curriculum. That sounds good to me.

This is the other reason why "good schools" aren't making sure kids are learning. That would be too old fashioned for many parents in good schools so it's just easier especially in elementary to have kids work on creative projects with no set measured goal and if they don't understand basics, the teachers and principals can just say, "well so and so was able to get this, so perhaps it's your child or you". It's never about the actual child's needs.

This is actually what I want more of for my kids so I fit with your view of parent's perspective. "Set measured goals" are often too reductive and often not what matters most in learning--but rather what can be reliably measured and is appropriate across a large group of students. Fine for what it is, but a limited education. I would prefer the teachers to focus their energies on how to find competent ways of judging complex performances that vary--much like what happens at IB, at the university level, and life.But There are criteria--but not perfectly measured goals. For the basics, I think set measured goals are good. But like a good portion of educated families, my kids entered K reading and doing math several years above grade level and have continued on without hitches. I'm not worried about their ability to master the basics.

I *would* prefer more competent math instruction--what I see happening is the worst of both worlds--too much rote practice on simple skills that are tested by SOL and then not enough thoughtful support in the deeper math investigations. Other countries have gotten math instruction down much better than we have in the US and we could learn a lot--but we don't attract enough math inclined adults to teach at the elementary level here so it's hard to import directly. I actually think students would do better if something like 3 teachers were hired in each elementary school to teach math to all the grades--much like an art or music specialist--and the rest of the math practice was just through computer adapted support.

Well I have to disagree. My child is now in a computer class and the teacher gives a list of 10 or things you can do to get an A for each project and the projects are quick so you don't have weeks to figure them out. Maybe there are five more very vague goals to get a higher grade if the kids want to be very creative. Some of the 10 goals though are creative goals such as create an imaginary story line as part of your project. It works, everyone knows what to do and the projects are just if not more creative and more importantly to the point of the project than the ones we saw with a different teacher where the kids were just floundering and talking and not getting anywhere because of no clear direction. Time and again, we saw these creative vague questions being asked of the kids and the kids having no direction how to achieve anything remotely creative or helpful to answering the question. The kids also get to do more projects with some direction because everyone is on task and there is a set due date.

In general this issue is more pronounced in math than other subjects. Math class as typically implemented, normally has very little room for creativity and exploration (and when they do try to implement it, it ends up with kids mostly spending their time doing very little actual math)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An equitable distribution of poverty whenever possible will ensure nobody will be able to coast all year.

yes that would be bad for the normal students

No, it wouldn't if the poverty level at each school was not allowed to go higher than 25-30%. I know FCPS' tipping point study said 20% but it can work. I think Federal funding should be pumped in at that point instead of waiting until a school reaches 40%. By then it's too late and too much.

I agree, but within classes in a school, the poverty level can be really high in regular classes and low in honors or AP. So even when a school's poverty level is low, having large classes with high poverty numbers brings down the whole school.

I know - we've been in schools with 50-60% poverty and it takes its toll. That's why a more equitable distribution is necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that when we as a country started using testing as a measure of what is a good school everything else went out of the window.

I have kids in a "good" school in FCPS. And OP's description is spot on. Yes, during open houses, teachers will say they don't believe in tons of homework, but suddenly when an ECART occurs, we get worksheets and recommendations that we supplement our kids' learning because they aren't getting it in class. When I had a kid in AAP, I got e-mails explaining that the expectation is that he would know all of his times tables before the year started, so I might want to either teach him over the summer or get a tutor. It's frustrating.

While the kids are great peers, I do wonder if there is something to what OP said. Are we complacent? Do we accept our "good" schools, "good" SAT scores, etc. because our property values are tied to this?

One check on all of this has been the PTA. We've had horrible principals literally run back to the Gatehouse because the PTA was able to mobilize. So, there's that. But I do see a lot of what OP is saying to be true. But I wonder...do we even care?

Honestly what you describe is what I was looking for. Sounds like your teachers aren’t teaching to the test, and are creating a real curriculum. That sounds good to me.

This is the other reason why "good schools" aren't making sure kids are learning. That would be too old fashioned for many parents in good schools so it's just easier especially in elementary to have kids work on creative projects with no set measured goal and if they don't understand basics, the teachers and principals can just say, "well so and so was able to get this, so perhaps it's your child or you". It's never about the actual child's needs.

This is actually what I want more of for my kids so I fit with your view of parent's perspective. "Set measured goals" are often too reductive and often not what matters most in learning--but rather what can be reliably measured and is appropriate across a large group of students. Fine for what it is, but a limited education. I would prefer the teachers to focus their energies on how to find competent ways of judging complex performances that vary--much like what happens at IB, at the university level, and life.But There are criteria--but not perfectly measured goals. For the basics, I think set measured goals are good. But like a good portion of educated families, my kids entered K reading and doing math several years above grade level and have continued on without hitches. I'm not worried about their ability to master the basics.

I *would* prefer more competent math instruction--what I see happening is the worst of both worlds--too much rote practice on simple skills that are tested by SOL and then not enough thoughtful support in the deeper math investigations. Other countries have gotten math instruction down much better than we have in the US and we could learn a lot--but we don't attract enough math inclined adults to teach at the elementary level here so it's hard to import directly. I actually think students would do better if something like 3 teachers were hired in each elementary school to teach math to all the grades--much like an art or music specialist--and the rest of the math practice was just through computer adapted support.

Well I have to disagree. My child is now in a computer class and the teacher gives a list of 10 or things you can do to get an A for each project and the projects are quick so you don't have weeks to figure them out. Maybe there are five more very vague goals to get a higher grade if the kids want to be very creative. Some of the 10 goals though are creative goals such as create an imaginary story line as part of your project. It works, everyone knows what to do and the projects are just if not more creative and more importantly to the point of the project than the ones we saw with a different teacher where the kids were just floundering and talking and not getting anywhere because of no clear direction. Time and again, we saw these creative vague questions being asked of the kids and the kids having no direction how to achieve anything remotely creative or helpful to answering the question. The kids also get to do more projects with some direction because everyone is on task and there is a set due date.

In general this issue is more pronounced in math than other subjects. Math class as typically implemented, normally has very little room for creativity and exploration (and when they do try to implement it, it ends up with kids mostly spending their time doing very little actual math)

Creativity and Exploration and goals don't have to be at odds with each other. Goals can be creative ones and can help kids focus their exploration. They are something to strive for, not necessarily an identical outcome. The GATP project my child did took over 2 months and had few goals and not much was accomplished because the rubric wasn't circulated till the project was finished nor were the children taught how to measure their project against a rubric. They basically completed a project that matched very few of the rubric goals. This is what I mean by giving creative projects with no set goals associated with them.

[Anonymous]

Creativity and exploration aren't at odds, they go hand in hand. Exploration is a usually a creative process, and being creative usually involves exploring.

Are you specifically referring to math or something else? I'm not familiar with GATP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Creativity and exploration aren't at odds, they go hand in hand. Exploration is a usually a creative process, and being creative usually involves exploring.

Are you specifically referring to math or something else? I'm not familiar with GATP.

GATP is a social studies and language arts project that all FCPS students do in 5th grade. It's just an example of a project where FCPS now doesn't want to stifle the kid's creativity by giving any guidelines, but I feel instead they stifle the children by not giving them good direction to help them be more creative and exploratory.

[Anonymous]

Thanks. I have the same feeling that many projects are implemented poorly, either too boring because it is a straightforward real life tedious application of the concept, or too vague/ill defined where the kids don't have direction (which would normally result in many just wasting time, going off on tangents, etc). Making appropriate projects that teach a lot takes skill.

[Anonymous]

The project ideas themselves are not the problem. It is the implementation that is the problem. Which is why a teacher who doesn't see themselves responsible for getting a child from here to there becomes an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I get it, but I think these parents don't care for a few reasons. First, their home's values is tied up to those test scores. So, they bought into the whole premise that you seem to challenge. Good scores = good schools = good property values. Sure, they could rock the boat and demand more, but I think the effort required and payoff isn't something most parents in these zones see worthwhile. So, they supplement.

Second, if you noticed on this thread a lot of people mentioned "peer groups" or an achievement type culture. What they are saying in code is that they don't want their kids around those chip eating poor kids. I get it, even poor kids can work hard, but they don't want to get any sort of influence on their kids from kids who are in poverty.

Finally, I think a lot of parents don't really care about learning. They want their kids to pass the tests, do well on the college entrance exams, have a good GPA and go to college. How that happens isn't really important.

What’s wrong with chips? We are in a deeemed good pyramid. DH and I are Ivy League educated and we love chips.

[Anonymous]

I could have written this. I taught in a Title I school and then moved to a school that is middle of the road. Even at the not Langley/McLean pyramid school, I see the same thing. I am almost tempted to go back to the Title I school and pupil place my kids there. I saw a lot more innovative teaching and problem solving going on there. At my higher SES school, if a kid is struggling, the first step seems to be getting the kid to local screening because it MUST be the kid, not the teaching. At the Title I school, we actually problem solved during CT meetings and figured out reteaching strategies and ways to improve challenging behaviors. I think teachers were more willing to take risks and try new things. I also think the kids themselves were more open to taking risks because their parents weren't breathing down their necks about getting straight A's and getting into TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could have written this. I taught in a Title I school and then moved to a school that is middle of the road. Even at the not Langley/McLean pyramid school, I see the same thing. I am almost tempted to go back to the Title I school and pupil place my kids there. I saw a lot more innovative teaching and problem solving going on there. At my higher SES school, if a kid is struggling, the first step seems to be getting the kid to local screening because it MUST be the kid, not the teaching. At the Title I school, we actually problem solved during CT meetings and figured out reteaching strategies and ways to improve challenging behaviors. I think teachers were more willing to take risks and try new things. I also think the kids themselves were more open to taking risks because their parents weren't breathing down their necks about getting straight A's and getting into TJ.

OP here. I am so glad I'm not alone on this.

I just got a kid moved to my class because the previous teacher couldn't handle her. I spent one week with the kid and she's fine. You know what the problem was? The old teacher wouldn't use different ways to address the kid's issues (attention and behavior mostly, but interestingly enough I think she's bored and acts out and there's a feedback loop that merits getting the kid tested by the school for IEP supports). I've seen this issue so, so many times in my old school and we have strategies. Here, the only strategy is to push to the parents who inevitably do testing on their own (even though we probably should and this kid will get screened because I did the paperwork to support this). And then we enter the combat zone of special ed. Parents hire consultants and the school gets adversarial and you know what? It's the school's fault. It doesn't have to be like this. I spent years working with IEPs and parents and it's never as adversarial as it is around here.

I'm sorry for the venting. It's been one of those days. I keep quiet, focus on teaching the kids, and mind my own business, but I look around here and sometimes am blown away by how much we just coast by.

And when it comes to my kids, we live in a middle of the road school zone because it's closer to DH's work (and my work now). We use our neighborhood schools but mostly because I never wanted to teach in the same school as my kids (it can be complicated professionally if there's an issue).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could have written this. I taught in a Title I school and then moved to a school that is middle of the road. Even at the not Langley/McLean pyramid school, I see the same thing. I am almost tempted to go back to the Title I school and pupil place my kids there. I saw a lot more innovative teaching and problem solving going on there. At my higher SES school, if a kid is struggling, the first step seems to be getting the kid to local screening because it MUST be the kid, not the teaching. At the Title I school, we actually problem solved during CT meetings and figured out reteaching strategies and ways to improve challenging behaviors. I think teachers were more willing to take risks and try new things. I also think the kids themselves were more open to taking risks because their parents weren't breathing down their necks about getting straight A's and getting into TJ.

OP here. I am so glad I'm not alone on this.

I just got a kid moved to my class because the previous teacher couldn't handle her. I spent one week with the kid and she's fine. You know what the problem was? The old teacher wouldn't use different ways to address the kid's issues (attention and behavior mostly, but interestingly enough I think she's bored and acts out and there's a feedback loop that merits getting the kid tested by the school for IEP supports). I've seen this issue so, so many times in my old school and we have strategies. Here, the only strategy is to push to the parents who inevitably do testing on their own (even though we probably should and this kid will get screened because I did the paperwork to support this). And then we enter the combat zone of special ed. Parents hire consultants and the school gets adversarial and you know what? It's the school's fault. It doesn't have to be like this. I spent years working with IEPs and parents and it's never as adversarial as it is around here.

I'm sorry for the venting. It's been one of those days. I keep quiet, focus on teaching the kids, and mind my own business, but I look around here and sometimes am blown away by how much we just coast by.

And when it comes to my kids, we live in a middle of the road school zone because it's closer to DH's work (and my work now). We use our neighborhood schools but mostly because I never wanted to teach in the same school as my kids (it can be complicated professionally if there's an issue).

You sound like a dedicated teacher, but you haven't posted a single thing that makes me regret our decision to move from a "middle of the road" pyramid to one of the "top" pyramids in FCPS. We've encountered teachers who "coast," and teachers who go the extra mile, in both pyramids, but the overall environment at the top pyramid is simply better, especially the work ethic of the students and the range of extra-curricular activities.

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could have written this. I taught in a Title I school and then moved to a school that is middle of the road. Even at the not Langley/McLean pyramid school, I see the same thing. I am almost tempted to go back to the Title I school and pupil place my kids there. I saw a lot more innovative teaching and problem solving going on there. At my higher SES school, if a kid is struggling, the first step seems to be getting the kid to local screening because it MUST be the kid, not the teaching. At the Title I school, we actually problem solved during CT meetings and figured out reteaching strategies and ways to improve challenging behaviors. I think teachers were more willing to take risks and try new things. I also think the kids themselves were more open to taking risks because their parents weren't breathing down their necks about getting straight A's and getting into TJ.

OP here. I am so glad I'm not alone on this.

I just got a kid moved to my class because the previous teacher couldn't handle her. I spent one week with the kid and she's fine. You know what the problem was? The old teacher wouldn't use different ways to address the kid's issues (attention and behavior mostly, but interestingly enough I think she's bored and acts out and there's a feedback loop that merits getting the kid tested by the school for IEP supports). I've seen this issue so, so many times in my old school and we have strategies. Here, the only strategy is to push to the parents who inevitably do testing on their own (even though we probably should and this kid will get screened because I did the paperwork to support this). And then we enter the combat zone of special ed. Parents hire consultants and the school gets adversarial and you know what? It's the school's fault. It doesn't have to be like this. I spent years working with IEPs and parents and it's never as adversarial as it is around here.

I'm sorry for the venting. It's been one of those days. I keep quiet, focus on teaching the kids, and mind my own business, but I look around here and sometimes am blown away by how much we just coast by.

And when it comes to my kids, we live in a middle of the road school zone because it's closer to DH's work (and my work now). We use our neighborhood schools but mostly because I never wanted to teach in the same school as my kids (it can be complicated professionally if there's an issue).

You sound like a dedicated teacher, but you haven't posted a single thing that makes me regret our decision to move from a "middle of the road" pyramid to one of the "top" pyramids in FCPS. We've encountered teachers who "coast," and teachers who go the extra mile, in both pyramids, but the overall environment at the top pyramid is simply better, especially the work ethic of the students and the range of extra-curricular activities.

Good luck.

Agree. I miss my old middle-of-the-road neighborhood terribly, BUT, I can tell the difference in the school. As kids get to HS, they tend to pay less attention to their parents and more to their peers. For the high fliers, the middle or lower tier schools are going to be fine. They will fly high regardless of where they are, and probably stand out more in the middle/lower schools. But, for kids who are the high fliers, the peer group (and herd movement) toward college/planning/studying/success makes a difference. It came at a price for me, but we got what we intended to get.

[Anonymous]

Typo:

But, for kids who are NOT the high fliers, the peer group (and herd movement) toward college/planning/studying/success makes a difference. It came at a price for me, but we got what we intended to get.