Anonymous wrote:I think this video is an important reminder for parents and administrators

https://fb.watch/hcxdi1BUVj/?mibextid=0LFGlp

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Child Left Behind/Every Child Succeeds Act required school districts to jump through certain hoops each year involving high stakes state tests for students in grades and evaluating teachers in part based on student test score improvement.

Is there any evidence that requiring high stakes tests every year has actually improved student learning, though?

Because it's a LOT of testing. And causes a lot of disruption to the school day. We have the state tests, then the county benchmark tests. And kids with accommodations get their accommodations but not always at the same time as the classroom tests, so they sometimes miss some more instruction. Not just once a year, but many many times a year.

Is all this testing showing good results? Because if not, maybe we could get rid of all these mandatory tests and get rid of school report cards based on how well students perform on these tests.

(Except if we got rid of the school report cards, how would parents know where to buy a house?)

Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

How do private schools do it? They seem to do ok

Most private schools give standardized testing every year, precisely so that parents can evaluate the effectiveness of the school and teachers. They juts don't make a big deal out of it, which I suspect actually allows the kids to do better than the hoopla that the public schools do. (I have one in each. I don't notice any significant difference in the amount of standardized testing. I do notice a *very* significant difference in the amount of discussion and drama surrounding testing.)

Anonymous wrote:
Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Child Left Behind/Every Child Succeeds Act required school districts to jump through certain hoops each year involving high stakes state tests for students in grades and evaluating teachers in part based on student test score improvement.

Is there any evidence that requiring high stakes tests every year has actually improved student learning, though?

Because it's a LOT of testing. And causes a lot of disruption to the school day. We have the state tests, then the county benchmark tests. And kids with accommodations get their accommodations but not always at the same time as the classroom tests, so they sometimes miss some more instruction. Not just once a year, but many many times a year.

Is all this testing showing good results? Because if not, maybe we could get rid of all these mandatory tests and get rid of school report cards based on how well students perform on these tests.

(Except if we got rid of the school report cards, how would parents know where to buy a house?)

Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

How do private schools do it? They seem to do ok

Most private schools give standardized testing every year, precisely so that parents can evaluate the effectiveness of the school and teachers. They juts don't make a big deal out of it, which I suspect actually allows the kids to do better than the hoopla that the public schools do. (I have one in each. I don't notice any significant difference in the amount of standardized testing. I do notice a *very* significant difference in the amount of discussion and drama surrounding testing.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Child Left Behind/Every Child Succeeds Act required school districts to jump through certain hoops each year involving high stakes state tests for students in grades and evaluating teachers in part based on student test score improvement.

Is there any evidence that requiring high stakes tests every year has actually improved student learning, though?

Because it's a LOT of testing. And causes a lot of disruption to the school day. We have the state tests, then the county benchmark tests. And kids with accommodations get their accommodations but not always at the same time as the classroom tests, so they sometimes miss some more instruction. Not just once a year, but many many times a year.

Is all this testing showing good results? Because if not, maybe we could get rid of all these mandatory tests and get rid of school report cards based on how well students perform on these tests.

(Except if we got rid of the school report cards, how would parents know where to buy a house?)

Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

How do private schools do it? They seem to do ok

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Child Left Behind/Every Child Succeeds Act required school districts to jump through certain hoops each year involving high stakes state tests for students in grades and evaluating teachers in part based on student test score improvement.

Is there any evidence that requiring high stakes tests every year has actually improved student learning, though?

Because it's a LOT of testing. And causes a lot of disruption to the school day. We have the state tests, then the county benchmark tests. And kids with accommodations get their accommodations but not always at the same time as the classroom tests, so they sometimes miss some more instruction. Not just once a year, but many many times a year.

Is all this testing showing good results? Because if not, maybe we could get rid of all these mandatory tests and get rid of school report cards based on how well students perform on these tests.

(Except if we got rid of the school report cards, how would parents know where to buy a house?)

Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

How do private schools do it? They seem to do ok

My child’s private school gives students an Iowa test each year.

Ours' doesn't. The kids are obviously happy and learning though. They want to stay at school as long as possible, they get unhappy about being picked up early, they show off the schoolwork they bring home, make relevant comments about current events like different forms of government monarchy vs democracy vs republic in ways I didn't consider until much older. I'd say that they're learning better without the testing

But you have no evidence of that. You may feel that the work your child brings home is impressive to you but how do you know they are learning sufficiently without comparison to some standard? I don’t know how old your child is, but my child was studying ancient Rome and writing essays comparing Augustus Caesar to Julius Caesar in 2nd grade. I didn’t do that until high school. But if I used his deeper history lessons as a standard, I would miss that he was falling behind in reading/math skills.

Schools can easily impress some parents with their many words and selective content depth. It’s harder to explain away test scores in black and white.

Yes, government won't tell you anything about reading or math, but that example was specific to government. Surely you can tell from the math they pull out in their day-to-day or from their homework how they're doing, or from the books they're reading? Many children who are rarely tested go on to lead bright futures, brighter than ones who are tested frequently.

I’m sure the parents at this school thought their children were getting a basic education. That is until 100% failed the standardized test! Without that test, parents would have been kept in the dark.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/new-york-city-hasidic-schools-education/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers need to quit whining. Even this thread is about why nobody supposedly acknowledges how overworked teachers are. We get it, you feel stressed out, but so are many other professionals. We've already heard you complain about it 1000 times. Why do you think you're special and get to whine louder than everyone else?

I don’t think you can appreciate the stress of teaching unless you’ve done it. Is it the ONLY hard job? Of course not. Are teachers extremely overworked? Yes.

-career changer who has worked in the corporate world. I hard rough weeks in that job, but teaching is considerably more time-consuming and stressful to me.

Fact is that many middling college students who'd rather not get stressed out over grad school self-select into the teaching profession because they think it's an easier gig with lots of vacation time. And then those people get all upset when they realize that teaching is just as hard as many other jobs. So it's not the work per se but the false expectations about teaching that's causing all the whining.

Teachers get very little paid vacation time and that time is dictated to them. They do not have the option of working for more than the ~190 days of the school year without applying for another, different,temporary job. For all practical purposes, they are furloughed every summer.

I have missed three family weddings and will miss putting my child on the bus for his first day of kindergarten. This isn’t to mention missing every school concert, ceremony, party, field trip, and event because teaching offers zero flexibility. But yes, I get the summer off, unpaid. I teach at a camp then, instead. It’s hard seeing people who make three times what I do being able to flex hours or work remotely to take their kid to the doctor, take a long weekend, or go visit their kid’s class. They certainly aren’t working harder or more than I am. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Child Left Behind/Every Child Succeeds Act required school districts to jump through certain hoops each year involving high stakes state tests for students in grades and evaluating teachers in part based on student test score improvement.

Is there any evidence that requiring high stakes tests every year has actually improved student learning, though?

Because it's a LOT of testing. And causes a lot of disruption to the school day. We have the state tests, then the county benchmark tests. And kids with accommodations get their accommodations but not always at the same time as the classroom tests, so they sometimes miss some more instruction. Not just once a year, but many many times a year.

Is all this testing showing good results? Because if not, maybe we could get rid of all these mandatory tests and get rid of school report cards based on how well students perform on these tests.

(Except if we got rid of the school report cards, how would parents know where to buy a house?)

Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

Oh you naive little parent you. How quaint. Can you please explain why a child who doesn’t speak English should perform at the same level as the kid who receives outside tutoring so they can get “ahead.” Can you please explain how a teacher who doesn’t make decisions about the curriculum which script should be read or which video should be shown at which time can be held accountable for learning.

You are thinking from a child’s perspective. when you were in school the teacher seemed in charge so you think that is still the case. My friend, it is not. Teachers don’t have the much power or say despite your childhood memories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers need to quit whining. Even this thread is about why nobody supposedly acknowledges how overworked teachers are. We get it, you feel stressed out, but so are many other professionals. We've already heard you complain about it 1000 times. Why do you think you're special and get to whine louder than everyone else?

I don’t think you can appreciate the stress of teaching unless you’ve done it. Is it the ONLY hard job? Of course not. Are teachers extremely overworked? Yes.

-career changer who has worked in the corporate world. I hard rough weeks in that job, but teaching is considerably more time-consuming and stressful to me.

Fact is that many middling college students who'd rather not get stressed out over grad school self-select into the teaching profession because they think it's an easier gig with lots of vacation time. And then those people get all upset when they realize that teaching is just as hard as many other jobs. So it's not the work per se but the false expectations about teaching that's causing all the whining.

Teachers get very little paid vacation time and that time is dictated to them. They do not have the option of working for more than the ~190 days of the school year without applying for another, different,temporary job. For all practical purposes, they are furloughed every summer.

Not only are teachers furloughed all summer, but there are restrictions on what jobs they can do during those eight weeks. My sister in law had to turn down an offer to tend bar in a strip club. It’s not just morality clauses, either. For example, in my district, a teacher can’t nanny or tutor a child who might end up as a student at their school.

They’re still collecting benefits, namely subsidized health care, over the summer. Perhaps a fair trade would be forgoing the school’s contribution to health care premiums over the summer months in return for removing any restrictions on outside employment.

This is not a good solution. If schools end the health care coverage, then teachers would need to find some other health care coverage for the summer months. For teachers or dependents who have special circumstances, if they lost health coverage, when they resumed health coverage in the fall, they or one of their dependents might no longer qualify. When you transition from one health care to another, the new insurer has to accept any preexisting conditions. If you stop and restart the health care coverage, then they do not have to accept preexisting conditions. So, then, if teachers did not have alternative coverage, for example a spouse that had health care coverage AND that the ending of benefits for a seasonal position was considered a qualifying event to change outside of enrollment period, then they would need to find an start a ACA covered insurance plan that could provide coverage for the 2 month interruption of coverage. This is a horrible idea for many.

Alternatively, if you had teachers paid for 10 months and not paid for two months, then how would you collect the outstanding premiums for the remaining two months of the summer break. You are saying that the school district would forgot the school systems contribution. So you are saying that these teachers would not have the option to get paid for 10 months, that they would have to be prorated to be paid over 12 months so that the premiums could still be withdrawn? Or they would have ten months of premiums that were charged at one rate and two months of premiums at a second higher rate that would be deducted during the ten months of the school year. But then, what would happen if a teacher left employment at the end of the school year? Would the higher deduction rate of the summer months be reimbursed to them? What if they left in the middle of the school year? How would those prorated higher rate premiums be reimbursed to them when they left?

Trying to account for 10 months of premiums at one rate and two months of premiums at a different rate, and distributed over 10 months/22 pay periods and still not overcharge employees when they leave employment would be an accounting nightmare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Child Left Behind/Every Child Succeeds Act required school districts to jump through certain hoops each year involving high stakes state tests for students in grades and evaluating teachers in part based on student test score improvement.

Is there any evidence that requiring high stakes tests every year has actually improved student learning, though?

Because it's a LOT of testing. And causes a lot of disruption to the school day. We have the state tests, then the county benchmark tests. And kids with accommodations get their accommodations but not always at the same time as the classroom tests, so they sometimes miss some more instruction. Not just once a year, but many many times a year.

Is all this testing showing good results? Because if not, maybe we could get rid of all these mandatory tests and get rid of school report cards based on how well students perform on these tests.

(Except if we got rid of the school report cards, how would parents know where to buy a house?)

Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

How do private schools do it? They seem to do ok

My child’s private school gives students an Iowa test each year.

Ours' doesn't. The kids are obviously happy and learning though. They want to stay at school as long as possible, they get unhappy about being picked up early, they show off the schoolwork they bring home, make relevant comments about current events like different forms of government monarchy vs democracy vs republic in ways I didn't consider until much older. I'd say that they're learning better without the testing

But you have no evidence of that. You may feel that the work your child brings home is impressive to you but how do you know they are learning sufficiently without comparison to some standard? I don’t know how old your child is, but my child was studying ancient Rome and writing essays comparing Augustus Caesar to Julius Caesar in 2nd grade. I didn’t do that until high school. But if I used his deeper history lessons as a standard, I would miss that he was falling behind in reading/math skills.

Schools can easily impress some parents with their many words and selective content depth. It’s harder to explain away test scores in black and white.

Yes, government won't tell you anything about reading or math, but that example was specific to government. Surely you can tell from the math they pull out in their day-to-day or from their homework how they're doing, or from the books they're reading? Many children who are rarely tested go on to lead bright futures, brighter than ones who are tested frequently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Child Left Behind/Every Child Succeeds Act required school districts to jump through certain hoops each year involving high stakes state tests for students in grades and evaluating teachers in part based on student test score improvement.

Is there any evidence that requiring high stakes tests every year has actually improved student learning, though?

Because it's a LOT of testing. And causes a lot of disruption to the school day. We have the state tests, then the county benchmark tests. And kids with accommodations get their accommodations but not always at the same time as the classroom tests, so they sometimes miss some more instruction. Not just once a year, but many many times a year.

Is all this testing showing good results? Because if not, maybe we could get rid of all these mandatory tests and get rid of school report cards based on how well students perform on these tests.

(Except if we got rid of the school report cards, how would parents know where to buy a house?)

Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

How do private schools do it? They seem to do ok

My child’s private school gives students an Iowa test each year.

Ours' doesn't. The kids are obviously happy and learning though. They want to stay at school as long as possible, they get unhappy about being picked up early, they show off the schoolwork they bring home, make relevant comments about current events like different forms of government monarchy vs democracy vs republic in ways I didn't consider until much older. I'd say that they're learning better without the testing

But you have no evidence of that. You may feel that the work your child brings home is impressive to you but how do you know they are learning sufficiently without comparison to some standard? I don’t know how old your child is, but my child was studying ancient Rome and writing essays comparing Augustus Caesar to Julius Caesar in 2nd grade. I didn’t do that until high school. But if I used his deeper history lessons as a standard, I would miss that he was falling behind in reading/math skills.

Schools can easily impress some parents with their many words and selective content depth. It’s harder to explain away test scores in black and white.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Child Left Behind/Every Child Succeeds Act required school districts to jump through certain hoops each year involving high stakes state tests for students in grades and evaluating teachers in part based on student test score improvement.

Is there any evidence that requiring high stakes tests every year has actually improved student learning, though?

Because it's a LOT of testing. And causes a lot of disruption to the school day. We have the state tests, then the county benchmark tests. And kids with accommodations get their accommodations but not always at the same time as the classroom tests, so they sometimes miss some more instruction. Not just once a year, but many many times a year.

Is all this testing showing good results? Because if not, maybe we could get rid of all these mandatory tests and get rid of school report cards based on how well students perform on these tests.

(Except if we got rid of the school report cards, how would parents know where to buy a house?)

Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

How do private schools do it? They seem to do ok

My child’s private school gives students an Iowa test each year.

Ours' doesn't. The kids are obviously happy and learning though. They want to stay at school as long as possible, they get unhappy about being picked up early, they show off the schoolwork they bring home, make relevant comments about current events like different forms of government monarchy vs democracy vs republic in ways I didn't consider until much older. I'd say that they're learning better without the testing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Child Left Behind/Every Child Succeeds Act required school districts to jump through certain hoops each year involving high stakes state tests for students in grades and evaluating teachers in part based on student test score improvement.

Is there any evidence that requiring high stakes tests every year has actually improved student learning, though?

Because it's a LOT of testing. And causes a lot of disruption to the school day. We have the state tests, then the county benchmark tests. And kids with accommodations get their accommodations but not always at the same time as the classroom tests, so they sometimes miss some more instruction. Not just once a year, but many many times a year.

Is all this testing showing good results? Because if not, maybe we could get rid of all these mandatory tests and get rid of school report cards based on how well students perform on these tests.

(Except if we got rid of the school report cards, how would parents know where to buy a house?)

Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

How do private schools do it? They seem to do ok

My child’s private school gives students an Iowa test each year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is, schools are paying for your health care over the summer, even though you’re not doing work for them over the summer. That is a very good deal. Teachers can either treat the summer as a vacation, they can care for their kids without needing to pay for camps, or they can go off an get a summer job that wouldn’t need to include benefits. That’s definitely worth the small restrictions on summer employment that a teacher was complaining about earlier in this thread.

So, I will agree that having "summers off" is the number one perk of being a teacher. (#2 is, of course, having snow days and #3, your own kids' vacation day schedule, if you have kids).

Continuing to have dental, vision, LTD premiums coverage those months (I get my health insurance through my husband's plan) is a perk as well. It's just 4 pay periods out of a total of 26, it's not like it's some big huge benefit or anything, but yes, there is a benefit there. It's part of the understanding we have when we sign our contract.

There's an alternative: School districts could just pay us for the 22 pay periods we work, and consider us "temporarily unemployed" for the 4 pay periods we don't work. We could file for COBRA, we could file for unemployment. Our biweekly paycheck would go up 18%. Their contribution to our health insurance premiums would go down by 18% -- and then we'd need to lose health coverage for those 4 pay periods unless we contributed it on our own. That seems really complicated to me logistically for a profession where everyone is on the same summer schedule -- where you can anticipate that there will be 8 weeks where people aren't working. To me, it makes sense that part of the salary package includes health insurance for 26 pay periods, not just the 22 you are actively working. But I don't work in HR or Payroll. Maybe it would be easier to do it a different way?

I personally don't feel that would be a decent tradeoff as it really doesn't solve any problems, except maybe it would make parents like you feel better that teachers weren't getting some great summer benefit in keeping their employer subsidized health insurance premiums for 4 pay periods?

I have to add, I don't feel there are any major restrictions on teacher summer jobs. Its true you aren't allowed to tutor your own students or students at your school for pay, but there are summer school options, and you can tutor thousands of other kids who aren't at your school. I don't think it would be a problem if I wanted to work at a bar or anything. Probably working as a stripper would cause some issues. Summer job choice is not a major issue of complaint for any teacher I know, anyhow.

It *is* hard to find summer employment that would be at the same rate as my usual salary.

(My biggest complaint in terms of vacation or days off is actually that all my vacation needs to be taken in the summer or at school breaks, and that I have to take 4 hours off at a time... can't just do one hour here or there (because of sub coverage). As an older teacher and member of the sandwich generation, I need a lot of time off now for medical care for family members. But my district won't let me take just one hour off, it has to be a half day or a full day. I would gladly give up an entire week of summer vacation, just to have a few more hours off when I need it during the school year.)

But none of these concerns come close to the most challenging aspect of teaching and the reason so many are leaving - it's the absolutely unrealistic teaching demands and expectations being placed on teachers to have students reach certain benchmarks despite the fact that they enter our classrooms without the foundational skills they need to be doing grade level work. We can write a million "I can..." statements on our board, and we can implement your curriculum with fidelity as required, and we can monitor progress and adapt the lessons and scaffold them and keep anecdotal records and implement Tier two interventions, but if students are working severely below grade level these little "mini-lessons" aren't going to cut it. They need actual lessons. Actual, below grade level lessons on below grade level skills, and that doesn't happen in a 15 minute mini-lesson. Yet we aren't being allowed to teach below grade level skills with fidelity; it's just impossible to do it in the time you give us. So we do our best, but we know it is't enough, and it just makes work even harder for the teachers the next grade up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Child Left Behind/Every Child Succeeds Act required school districts to jump through certain hoops each year involving high stakes state tests for students in grades and evaluating teachers in part based on student test score improvement.

Is there any evidence that requiring high stakes tests every year has actually improved student learning, though?

Because it's a LOT of testing. And causes a lot of disruption to the school day. We have the state tests, then the county benchmark tests. And kids with accommodations get their accommodations but not always at the same time as the classroom tests, so they sometimes miss some more instruction. Not just once a year, but many many times a year.

Is all this testing showing good results? Because if not, maybe we could get rid of all these mandatory tests and get rid of school report cards based on how well students perform on these tests.

(Except if we got rid of the school report cards, how would parents know where to buy a house?)

Or if the teachers can effectively teach the students? Testing holds schools accountable. Without them, parents will be kept further in the dark as to how much learning is really taking place relative to national standards. Whenever I hear educators rail against testing, what I really hear are educators who want to reduce oversight and transparency in their classrooms.

We should have test to see if parents can effectively parent anymore.