Archive for the ‘highly qualified teachers’ Category

“The time has come…

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

To talk of many things”-Lewis Carroll. But talk about the lack of revision to ESEA (NCLB in its last iteration) is dominating the education world in September 2011.

rural school and district on Lopez Island, Washington

rural school and district on Lopez Island, Washington

The No Child Left Behind Act- President George W. Bush’s title for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)– was first authorized in 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson and revised every 5 years until the last alteration in 2001. Since then, all calls for adjustments have hit the high Congressional wall of inaction.

Who’s talking? National teachers’ unions NEA and AFT advocate change. The Council of Chief State School Officers exhorts Congress. Members of the National Governor’s Association have been in the forefront.

All across the country non-union teacher’s groups are the biggest voices: Educators4Excellence in New York; Teacher Plus in Boston, Indianapolis, and Chicago; Center for Teaching Quality in North Carolina, Denver, and Seattle to name a few.

What did the 2001 act provide? The legislation is lengthy and detailed. The sections on which most talk centers are “Improve the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged” and “Improving Basic Programs…” which delineate the main provisions of the act. Next, qualifications for teachers and paraprofessionals led to time-consuming paperwork to assure each teacher was “highly qualified.” Also, Innovative Programs morphed into advocacy for charter schools. The section “Improving Basic Programs” outlined the actions to show “adequate yearly progress” in reading and mathematics: in brief, each state must teach to its curriculum standards and provide outcomes on benchmark exams which would lead to 100% school proficiency in reading and math by 2014.

Why is NCLB so despised? All of these mandated programs are underfunded. As has been declared in this blog many times, it was clear to most teachers and administrators from the beginning that to have every student in a state reach grade level proficiency in two subjects by 2014 was a preposterous goal. The cost of upgrading curriculum standards and providing tests that give a single score by which to judge students is a contentious argument.

The ESEA legislation should have been revised by Congress in 2005-2006. It wasn’t. President Obama laid out revisions for Congress to take up in 2009 and March 2011. No go. In August 2011, the U.S. Department of Education used a provision in the legislation to offer waivers to the 2014 proficiency benchmark. States that could show consistent improvement in the four big administration priorities for ESEA revision would be authorized to alter their programs. The administration’s priorities are 1) working state data systems; 2) turn-around plans for low-performing schools; 3) improve experienced vs. new teacher distribution in low-performing schools; 4) boost curriculum standards in the state.

To create jobs in a stricken economy and to provide a further push to Congress, President Obama in his speech on September 8, 2011, recommended $60 billion to be divided among states to save teachers’ jobs and fix the infrastructure of school property. The inference was also to finish ESEA revisions.

Representative John Kline, Education Committee, commented on the high cost and more regulation, calling the program a teacher’s union bailout. Representative George Miller and Senator Tom Harkin of their respective Education Committees were more enthusiastic. So far Congressional revisions have been offered to bolster charter schools, eliminate forty programs under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Education (like the Star Schools Distance Learning Program), and flexible shift of federal funds (like Title 1) from poverty budget lines to special education.

What to our surprise! John Kline’s House Education committee has passed a vote on the charter schools revisions yesterday, September 13, 2011. On to a full house vote.

On the other hand, teacher’s organizations look for revision in school and teacher accountability rules and evaluation; stability in curriculum standards; and testing that leads to better learning rather than a score by which to berate teachers and students when the hurdle is not vaulted even though students may have leaped higher.

The time has come….

Winter’s Tale

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011

My fourth grade students tromp into class each January morning wearing down jackets, scarves, baseball caps, nylon basketball shorts, and tennies, or better yet, flip-flops. The conglomeration of clothes is my fourth graders’ way of high-fashion dress, a nod to freezing winter temperatures and a nod to California sunshine.

California Bay Area elementary school

California Bay Area elementary school

On the other hand, my students are serious learners. On return to school after New Year’s, we began a science unit on classification of animals and plants. They learn fast, hold facts in their brains, and are quick to apply what they know.

On the study question that asked students to classify creatures in a photo as omnivores (plant and meat eaters) or herbivores (plant eaters) and give reasons, most students claimed bacteria were omnivores while the teacher’s manual said bacteria were herbivores. However, the students claimed they were correct because scientists have learned that many bacteria digest anything. How do they know? These children watched a lot of media coverage about the gulf oil spill, especially when the reports talked about petroleum-eating bacteria.

What does any highly qualified teacher do? I analyzed the data. It turns out those students were generally correct, but they had not read the question carefully.

The students certainly knew about omnivores and herbivores and didn’t need to have a review lesson on that scientific topic. If I had given points only by counting correct answers, I would never know that these smart students needed more instruction on the study skill of reading the question carefully before deciding on an answer.

The more I read about the poor scores of students in the United States on summative tests like the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the more I shake my head. Recent NAEP science test results reported that only 34% of a sampling of 308,000 fourth graders were proficient. The test was given to schools nation-wide in early 2009.

Statistical array results can bring up a lot of questions. Teachers aren’t teaching enough science because the focus is on reading/language arts and math? Science instruction is given short shrift because the teaching/learning day isn’t long enough? Public school budget crises divert attention from student academic achievement? Professional development isn’t emphasized unless the topic is reading and math?

Or all of the above? Education experts arguing about reform often use the results from NAEP tests to bolster any and all of the positions listed above.

Still, at my school for my class of students in 2011, the answer is none of the above. Above all, we do have the resources to analyze data. So here is the conundrum. Our school district does not volunteer to give the NAEP assessment. But how many of my kids would have proficient scores on that exam? I think almost all of them.

The scores, however, would not tell me which students needed more help with the study skill of reading the question carefully. To be proficient in high school and college, students need that skill, not only science facts.

What the NAEP results do tell me is that one time scores give a glimpse of science learning in the country’s schools, but what teachers need is collaborative time to analyze results and make instructional decisions that address student needs at a particular school.

And remember, they’re only in fourth grade. Minus jackets and mufflers, they’ve run outside to play soccer at recess in the California sun.

School’s Out but I’m Not

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

A topsy-turvy school year is over and the students are out, many just to attend summer sports camp or computer or art and dance classes.  Not knowing how close the district came to disastrous changes in strong schools.

I’m very happy that I’m not out.  The school district sent letters rescinding all the lay offs about three weeks before the start of summer vacation.

With a $4 million deficit, our local union agreed to five furlough days next school year and the parents in PTA and the Cupertino Foundation collected $2 million.  With job attrition, the use of reserves, and careful budgeting maneuvers, the district managed to find enough money to hold onto all teachers.  Parents are relieved that class size increases are staved off for one more year, special services will be maintained.

You can see how the closer people are to the schools they like, the more certain they are to support them with in-kind and financial help.

After the June elections, a number of bond measures and parcel taxes, some approved and some not, define the outlook of the schools from elementary to community college, including the school I attended, for the next several years until the state legislature either does its duty or the courts force revision of school finances.

In the meantime we had Open House at the end of May.  Parents had smiles on their faces as they looked at the maps made by their student as an assessment of the geometry unit.  Various polyhedrons, named for houses and businesses, sat on the ’streets’ made by geometric angles.  I was amazed that a few parents of third graders quizzed me about instruction for next year, sort of auditioning me for their child’s year in fourth grade.  They didn’t seem to understand that the teacher doesn’t choose who is in her class.  The students are assigned and rarely reassigned.

We even went on our yearly nature hike up to the site of the Ohlone Indian village in the Open Space Preserve above Filoli Gardens not far from Stanford University.  The docents that lead the students on the exploration of the woods and fields are retired professors and geologists from the U. S. Geological Survey, so it’s the best.  I was so glad the funds for the trip weren’t yanked to balance some budget line item.

It’s strange how things work out.  I was sure I was going to be substituting next year and so applied to San Jose State University to begin a Master’s degree program, thinking I’d have plenty of time to do well in the classes.  Now, I will be working full-time and taking classes at night like so many of my teacher friends.

Be careful what you wish for, right?

ACLU and CSBA Throw Down Gloves

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

School districts are doing what they always do as a way out of financial crises.  They look to the source of money generated by laying off personnel to solve the problem, never mind the issue of “last in, first out.”

up-scale suburban elementary school

up-scale suburban elementary school

As an example, in the up-scale suburban district of Los Altos, California, about 100 teachers are scheduled to be laid off, making class sizes rise even though the district has long touted its small classes.

All in spite of research showing how layoffs make things worse.  See this blog’s post on February 24, 2010, titled “Short Term, Long Term.”  The May 20, 2010, article “Teachers Facing Weakest Market for Jobs in Years” by Winnie Hu, New York Times, says “the recession seems to have penetrated a profession long seen as recession-proof.”  No kidding!

Not only are lay offs imminent-an estimate of 150,000 or more personnel nationwide, but jobs are not being offered.  One presumes class size increases are the answer.  Students aren’t going away.  Who’s going to teach them?

In this day and age, the layoff idea gets mixed up with the controversy about poor-performing teachers.  The ACLU-Southern California press release for its suit filed in Superior Court February 24, 2010, against lay offs in 3 lowest-performing middle schools in Los Angeles areas of Watts and Pico Union explains that lay offs seeming to be “a budget-related issue, underneath that is the teacher tenure policy that is under attack” by superintendent Cortines, Governor Schwarzeneggar et al.

To others, lay offs take on the quality of a civil rights issue.  Why should LIFO-”last in, first out”-be the school district’s policy when research shows that high-need schools in a district like Los Angeles have the newest teachers.  Whether they are fabulous or poor-performing, the teachers are gone each year a district faces a financial imbalance.  How can those schools establish a stable core of teachers, use resources to increase test performance, and train high-quality teachers–all of which is guaranteed in the state Constitution?

ACLU/SC won an injunction May 13, 2010.

Which leads to the suit filed May 20, 2010, in Alameda County Superior Court, by the California School Boards Association (CSBA), the California State PTA, and the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) as well as nine school districts up and down the state and 60 students.  The suit seeks to overhaul the finances for school funding to “provide the resources to actually deliver” on the mandate of what schools must teach and what students must learn.

Over the past 40 years there have been several decisions and initiatives, Proposition13 (1978) being the most well-known, and Serrano vs. Priest (1976) and Proposition 98 (1988) being influential, that have set California’s untenable education budget.  The plaintiff’s argument is that “school funding is unstable, unreliable, irrational, and overly restrictive,” according to Jill Tucker and Marisa Lagos in “Suit could force major changes in school funding” San Francisco Chronicle, May 21, 2010.  About 70% of similar “adequacy lawsuits” have succeeded, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In California, this suit will take years to work its way out of the courts, and one can only hope the legislature will resolve this systemic problem before the court decides for them.  One can expect that lay offs will continue to the detriment of schools and students, tenure-evaluation-compensation will keep being fought over, and stop-gap measures will be found to keep schools going, until the economy perks up and state money, that is taxes, rises to “normal.”

Act on Acting Out

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Do you know the jingle?  “When she is good, she’s very, very good, but when she is bad she is horrid.”

In my 4th grade class I have a child who is like that, so little self-control.  Now that it is the middle of the school year, her outbursts are close to habitual and I’m running out of strategies to modify her behavior.  By now she is often “sent to the office” for a “time out.”

When reading through articles, I get answers like ‘teachers must be able to remove disruptive students immediately’ suggesting that charter schools and parochial schools are better because they have that policy.  Perhaps those schools are quieter, but I can think of a number of reasons why all is silent, not necessarily kind and helpful reasons, and not simply because they get rid of disruptive students.

Of course, all teachers want their students to be quiet, studious, busy in productive activity-that’s what I learned in my credentialing classes.  After all, this is an intense phase of the school year when state tests are coming up in a month and students must have mastered all the subjects to be tested on California’s current criterion-referenced assessment tool.

At the same time, this is a school year of instability.  Though the Education Foundation is trying to cobble together funds, our school district deficit is large which means 102 teachers, including me, face lay offs.  In addition, guidelines for accountability are going to change due to new California legislation, and articles advocate a variety of evaluation mechanisms to lift up the highly qualified teachers and weed out the poorly qualified, all of which will take money, lots of money.  How will that happen?  The state is facing a budget deficit of $20 million for 2010-2011.

Do you see what I mean?  The ground is shaking under us and it’s hard to think of one more way to get this child to have a successful year.

Never give up.  We hold daily morning class meetings to review the business of the school day, remind ourselves how to act to help the class get through a successful day, talk over problems that might come up, defining over and over what happens if you choose to act out.