A few random thoughts. I am an ESOL teacher and work in a school with a high FARMS rate.

1. Pre-K is great for getting kids used to being in school. That is helpful, as when they get to K they don't have to take the time to learn how to stand in a line, sit on the carpet etc. And, yes, they do have to learn those things. Real instruction begins the first week of school, and if students do not know how to behave in a school setting then their energy goes to learning how to do that, not the academic concepts being taught.

That being said, Pre-K cannot cure everything. I just assessed all of our K students (not just ESOL) on their ability to write their name, ID shapes, colors, numbers to 31, letters and letter sounds. Many of the students who had a year of Pre-K still knew very few of these concepts. Reinforcement at home is key, and it doesn't happen in many families. What we're finding is that many parents don't really engage in much vocabulary-rich conversation with their kids. And by vocabulary-rich at this age, I mean things like talking about the colors of the food they're eating or that the TV is shaped like a rectangle.

2. This kind of goes along with my last point, but many people lump ELL students into one pile. There is a huge difference between kids who come to school with little or no English but have a very good grasp of their native language. Those students will need some time to learn the language, but the foundation is there. It's a lot easier to learn vocabulary and concepts in English when you already have the background knowledge even though it's in a different language. It's called positive transfer. These students make progress very quickly and catch up to grade level after a year or two. These types of students are pretty rare in my school, but we do have a few who are like this.

Then there are the students who were born in the US, can speak and understand English just fine, but come to school with extremely limited background knowledge. They come to Pre-K or K at 4 or 5 with very little vocabulary. They need to learn from the ground up. The curriculum (at least in my district) assumes that students have a certain amount of background knowledge from which to draw, but they just don't. So then content becomes more and more in depth and students fall farther and farther behind. Like 4th graders who are learning about different types of government, but don't know what a city, state, country or continent is and think that Barack Obama is the president of the whole world. This happens with ELLs and also students who don't speak or understand any language other than English.

My friend teaches in a school with an affluent population. We teach the same curriculum, but her students have such a large amount of background knowledge and experiences from which to draw. She may need to fill in a few gaps here and there, but at my school we're pretty much filling in gaps so much that the purpose of the unit ends up being lost. But if we try to restructure the unit so that kids will understand and actually get something out of it we get in trouble for not following the curriculum to the letter.

3. Teachers are pulled in way too many directions. Class sizes are large, considerable behavior problems are expected to be handled in class by the teacher, special ed. instruction and accommodations must be given by the teacher with little support, and there can be up to 6 reading groups in a class. It's just very difficult to have the time to give each student exactly what they need. Every lesson needs so much differentiation, and planning time is taken up by meetings, meetings and more meetings. Teachers at my school have 1 individual planning time per week. The rest is long-range common planning and data chats. Students who are below grade level must be receiving interventions and those interventions must be documented. If a student does not respond to interventions after a certain period of time a building-wide meeting with the parent is called. Often times the parent does not show up even though they said they would be there the day before. After a certain point, the process is stalled without any parent cooperation and students who may have some level of learning disability don't receive the help they need.

Teachers and schools keep being asked to do more and more. The teachers I work with are very dedicated to their students and want the best for them. But they are staying at school until 8pm and forgoing time with their own families in order to get everything done. There is strong pressure from administration in my school to sponsor after school clubs since our students don't get many extracurricular opportunities. There is no stipend money for these clubs, so teachers are expected to volunteer their time. We are also asked to sign up for slots during the summer to come in and serve lunch since our school qualifies for the summer lunch program but there isn't staff provided with the program. Teachers by nature are usually pretty generous people, but at some point enough is enough. The lines have blurred between teacher and caregiver.

These thoughts aren't in any particular order since I just wrote stream of consciousness style. Maybe I'll be back to give a more concise response and actually list top 5 reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not only poverty but the culture of poverty. I teach in a high FARMS school (not in DC). I think we are appr. 95% FARMS. Even if we gave money to the parents of the students, it probably wouldn't make a difference academically. Most years, 90% of my students have cars in their family. They never seem to go anywhere except stores and restaurants. Going on a field trip for them is eye opening. They could be visiting another planet for all they know. My students' parents believe that education happens in school. No matter how much we do to get parents to be involved (directly or indirectly) in their child's education, our efforts are mostly for naught. The only thing that gets parents into school is giveaways mostly in the form of gift cards. These students who qualify for free lunch sure do seem to have plenty of money for luxuries like cell phones (often newer versions than my own), electronics in the home like tablets, X-Box, etc. These same students often don't bring in school supplies. It is very frustrating to understand this culture when you don't come from it. But those who come from this culture don't go to college. We tout college and career readiness but I don't even know if college is what these families want for their kids. Some families in this neighborhood won't allow their high schoolers to go to magnet schools b/c the local high school is where they went and they turned out fine. Meanwhile, the local high school is near the bottom of our district. There are many fights and daily violence there. I want the best for my kids but many of the parents here seem to think the local option is good enough. Poverty is very concentrated where my school so too much poverty places a huge stress on the teachers, etc. I guess that is a districting/zoning issue. Attendance is an issue with kids not coming to school for reasons I used to laugh at when I first started here. Kids wouldn't come because 1) they overslept 2) it was raining/snowing, cold 3) their mom said they could stay home. All of our students live within walking distance except for special ed students who take a bus. None of our students go hungry (all get free breakfast and lunch and many get free dinner). We make sure all students have coats, backpacks, dental care, gloves, etc etc. I feel like the more we do, the more we are expected to do. I wish some of these students could be spread out into schools so they aren't all concentrated in one. Maybe if there were, they might meet kids who have plans for the future that involves higher education. I don't know if the solution is just one thing but I know that the teachers are tired and we just started. Back to planning.

This.

Yes.

But then, what's the solution?

Stop automatically electing Democrats? Because the system is broken and more of the same only makes it worse.

Dolly Parton's excellent free book program has expanded to DC and to many states. That might address part of what 17:13 was referring to, lack of books.

There are schools like Kipp, etc. that are helping change the don't-care culture, right?

Educated parents = educated children

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love to hear from teachers. What are your top 5 reasons many metro D.C. schools are underperforming for so many years or have you noticed improvements?

State how many years you've been a teacher and whether it's Elementary, Middle or High School.

Parents you can share your opinion but remember to be fair and objective. You are not with the students as much as teachers.

I'm just trying to understand if this is a funding issue ( will more money fix the problem): a poor leadership issue( school level, city or state level) or it's a political issue( doesn't it matter if it's a democratic vs republican city or state) or it's a socioeconomic issue ( the rich want to stay away from the poor).

Thank you for your responses!

It's a low SES issue/failure of parents to prepare their children for school issue

DC has over 70% poverty in schoolage population

When you have a school with over 40% poverty there are going to be major problems. The only schools in DC that don't suck have less than 40% poverty. PS this is true in Montgomery County Fairfax County, Arlington etc

School performance is directly related to SES

Can you be more specific? I thought universal pre-k was supposed to take care of this problem. I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way. I'm just wondering what you mean by parents not preparing their kids for school.

It helps a lot and should continue. But, high SES kids are so far ahead by age 3.

But they are required and for many poor schools, the poor implementation of these programs is a big reason why school performance is awful.

They may be putting a hole in the budget, but the problems were there long before the law required it. I taught in one of the very early Title I programs-I think it was called "Act I" in those days. All of this makes me very sad because the problems are still there.
Pre-K may help--but we have had Head Start for a long time--even in the early days of Title I. The kids who went to HS did better--but the improvement did not last. Why? I think it is because of the lack of interest in the home. An earlier poster mentioned that the parents let the kids stay home for whatever reason. I firmly believe that most everyone loves their kids--but some people just do not realize that they are part of their kids' education.
tThis cannot be solved by the schools. It is up to the families. How do we do that? The parents must be educated as to their own role in this.
Most people find it hard to believe that there are kids who go to school who have never seen a book. But, it is true.

I think it takes a huge literacy push. We have greatly reduced smoking through ads and promotions. Why can't we do that with literacy? I think B. Bush tried to do this, but it needs to be put on steroids. Ads, hospitals where the kids are born, social workers, food pantries, community centers, etc., need to teach parenting for small kids. They need to stress reading to kids, drawing with kids. Simple things like taking your kid to the store and talking to them when you are in the produce section. That kind of thing. Basic parenting skills.
Tell the parents to turn off the video games and turn on Sesame St. It's better than nothing.

Run ads telling the parents just how important it is to get your kid to school. Truancy is a terrible problem in these schools. Maybe rewards for attendance would help. Kids stay home to watch younger kids all the time. I taught a six year old who stayed home to watch the two year old while mom was passed out on the couch.

Anonymous wrote:Special Ed and ESL are also tearing holes in education budgets... but thats a different issue

But they are required and for many poor schools, the poor implementation of these programs is a big reason why school performance is awful.

Special Ed and ESL are also tearing holes in education budgets... but thats a different issue

I taught ESL in a DC charter and went running into the hills, I mean, erm FCPS.

Here is the problem with ESL in this country. Teachers do not have sufficient training to make classroom learning accessible to various levels of English language learners. They just expect the kids during the 30 or so minutes of pull outs I do during the week to make that happen. Because I have a case load of 125 kids, I only have time to pull groups of extremely low-level ESL students. So students who are in the middle (think speak well but have trouble reading/writing) struggle. Mightily. What's is interesting is that it's not difficult to get a kid out of a low-level ESL spot. What is difficult is to get them past the level 3-4 WIDA (the ESL test which should be the sole test ESL students should be held accountable for). I taught college level ESL for rich students from Saudi Arabia and China and can vouch for this -- people have the hardest time moving past level 3-4. It's also true that students who stay at this level are more likely to drop off and become involved in crime and other negative social outcomes. Research supports this.

So what happens is the student literally doesn't understand what they are supposed to be learning because they don't have enough academic English. Teachers don't have the training to differentiate their teaching and don't understand why their kids can't progress. The students do not do well on standardized testing and the school continues to suffer from either higher SES families leaving or from the state via losing accreditation (or threats thereof). Administrators push on teachers to drill, drill, drill, but that doesn't work because the students don't know enough English to understand the nuances of standardized tests.

FCPS is starting to do a better job at the high school level, requiring teachers to be dually certified. But it requires essentially an additional master's degree, with no extra pay, and oh, yeah, your job is going to be ten times more difficult than just teaching a straight class at a place like Lake Braddock. Because you are going to need to linguistically differentiate your lessons for basic, intermediate, and advanced ESL speakers as well as native speakers. So, there's no incentive beyond a moral one to put up with the trouble to teach ESL well in a place like Lee High School.

I actually like teaching ESL and content area classes, but I am not doing it for the money, I work part-time (because my spouse makes plenty) and I don't anyone would take on this additional level of work without additional pay.

Special education has the same damn problem. That's why both fields are hurting for people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not only poverty but the culture of poverty. I teach in a high FARMS school (not in DC). I think we are appr. 95% FARMS. Even if we gave money to the parents of the students, it probably wouldn't make a difference academically. Most years, 90% of my students have cars in their family. They never seem to go anywhere except stores and restaurants. Going on a field trip for them is eye opening. They could be visiting another planet for all they know. My students' parents believe that education happens in school. No matter how much we do to get parents to be involved (directly or indirectly) in their child's education, our efforts are mostly for naught. The only thing that gets parents into school is giveaways mostly in the form of gift cards. These students who qualify for free lunch sure do seem to have plenty of money for luxuries like cell phones (often newer versions than my own), electronics in the home like tablets, X-Box, etc. These same students often don't bring in school supplies. It is very frustrating to understand this culture when you don't come from it. But those who come from this culture don't go to college. We tout college and career readiness but I don't even know if college is what these families want for their kids. Some families in this neighborhood won't allow their high schoolers to go to magnet schools b/c the local high school is where they went and they turned out fine. Meanwhile, the local high school is near the bottom of our district. There are many fights and daily violence there. I want the best for my kids but many of the parents here seem to think the local option is good enough. Poverty is very concentrated where my school so too much poverty places a huge stress on the teachers, etc. I guess that is a districting/zoning issue. Attendance is an issue with kids not coming to school for reasons I used to laugh at when I first started here. Kids wouldn't come because 1) they overslept 2) it was raining/snowing, cold 3) their mom said they could stay home. All of our students live within walking distance except for special ed students who take a bus. None of our students go hungry (all get free breakfast and lunch and many get free dinner). We make sure all students have coats, backpacks, dental care, gloves, etc etc. I feel like the more we do, the more we are expected to do. I wish some of these students could be spread out into schools so they aren't all concentrated in one. Maybe if there were, they might meet kids who have plans for the future that involves higher education. I don't know if the solution is just one thing but I know that the teachers are tired and we just started. Back to planning.

This.

Yes.

But then, what's the solution?

I don't think this notion is a solution in and of itself, but I think it would help. Might not work in DC since so many families of higher SES are not in the system and attend private. But I think it would help tremendously in suburban areas just outside of DC that have VERY segregated school systems (MoCo, Fairfax, Arlington come to mind). If the students are immersed in an environment that DOES value education and effort from an early age, like Pre-K, they might be more likely to adopt that outlook. Also, they would have access to a wider variety of enrichment activities, which would be beneficial in multiple ways. For instance, let's say your school has an active PTA that can fund/staff something like a Chess Club. Not only might a student learn to play chess, which might improve logic through the ability to visualize, analyze, and think critically (which might even improve academic achievement), but they would be gaining access to a hobby that many elite/high achieving students share. I know I'm generalizing here. It could be violin lessons, or French lessons, or whatever. The more things like this that an underprivileged child can be exposed to, the better off they will be. Not just academically, but socially, too. They will have more in common with the peers they might (hopefully) encounter later in life during higher education.

Pay students for performance.

Make it worth the while to turn the head of the parents.

Sadly sometimes the only motivator in these situations is money.

If cold hard cash is on the line , impoverished parents who didn't care before might start to care.

I think one solution may be to really amp up technical and trade schools. High schools schools should not focus on trying to prepare everyone for college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love to hear from teachers. What are your top 5 reasons many metro D.C. schools are underperforming for so many years or have you noticed improvements?

State how many years you've been a teacher and whether it's Elementary, Middle or High School.

Parents you can share your opinion but remember to be fair and objective. You are not with the students as much as teachers.

I'm just trying to understand if this is a funding issue ( will more money fix the problem): a poor leadership issue( school level, city or state level) or it's a political issue( doesn't it matter if it's a democratic vs republican city or state) or it's a socioeconomic issue ( the rich want to stay away from the poor).

Thank you for your responses!

It's a low SES issue/failure of parents to prepare their children for school issue

DC has over 70% poverty in schoolage population

When you have a school with over 40% poverty there are going to be major problems. The only schools in DC that don't suck have less than 40% poverty. PS this is true in Montgomery County Fairfax County, Arlington etc

School performance is directly related to SES

Can you be more specific? I thought universal pre-k was supposed to take care of this problem. I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way. I'm just wondering what you mean by parents not preparing their kids for school.

Children come in to universal Pre-K with the basics. Many kids don't know 1-10 or letters yet
There are studies that show the gap by age 3 is too late. Parents don't read to their kids at all for example

On the other point you can't force a parent to parent. There are some pilot programs where there is help and support from the time the mom is preganant all the way through pre-k. These work does it make sense to pay for these programs? The altnerative is paying in higher crime rates, and another poverty cycle later on

Anonymous wrote:


Yes.

But then, what's the solution?

Maybe there is no solution.