Posts Tagged ‘standards’

Until June

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

I’m now beginning the last semester for my Master’s degree. It’s been a long haul to take classes, work on a thesis based on a need of my current students, and teach fourth grade full time.

public elementary school in the bay area

public elementary school in the bay area

Last week I watched the State of the Union message and was caught by the section that school districts should be helping students so they don’t drop out and instead graduate from high school. I had a hard time, thinking about my school district that was not in the least concerned when I didn’t finish high school as long as I had already completed the basic courses I needed. The district just took me off their records. I wasn’t counted as a “dropout.” I took Adult Ed classes to finish. It was only my family that forced them to let me be part of the graduation exercises.

My students this year are strong and willing to pursue their education. Let’s see what happens when they get to high school. Are they like me who went on to community college, then a four year college, and am now finishing a Master’s degree- in spite of the fact that I hated high school? Or are the high schools changing? Right now, I’m doing my best to make what is on the state standards relevant and interesting to fourth graders.

Then I saw an article in Tuesday’s New York Times that told about exaggerating SAT scores at one well-regarded private college to improve its ratings in the US News annual College Bound manual. Am I supposed to resolve this latest revelation?

Stop worrying about me, the teacher.

Start worrying about the money needed to run the institution of public education. Worry about those kids who aren’t upper or middle class and whose parents are just glad they are going to school much less their SAT score since the parents did not have any education. It’s going to take a long time to change their status.

Devil in the Details

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

Just a glance at the websites for the White House and the Department of Education tell you big changes are emerging.  The sites affirm that students learn when teachers are retained-not laid off; that the day is long, the work is hard, and mentoring helps; that planning time can’t be ignored if reform is the goal.

As you’ve heard in the news, the sites declare the intention to improve early childhood education, high school graduation rates, student loans to help college attendance.  Sounds like the new administration is addressing the problems being flogged by various education blocs over the last eight years since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was authorized.

The biggest change is the amount of funding for programs mandated by NCLB, a highlight of the federal stimulus package (February 2009) as well as the federal budget legislation (March 2009).

Interesting that governors on behalf of state school boards, if they want the funds, must agree to assure certain provisions: improve the quality of standardized tests and raise standards; enforce the requirement that the most highly qualified teachers are assigned equably among all students, rich and poor.

If Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, and Barack Obama have been listening, why are so many in the education field upset?

The devil is in the details.

Some like Diane Ravitch in a mid-April post on the blog Bridging Differences, part of Education Week’s online magazine, say the administration is not doing enough to change NCLB faults (and there are many).   Dorothy Meier in the same blog says that there is national denial about the problem among voters as well as state governments.  The mantra is teachers are incompetent, unions are only thinking about pay, parents don’t care, public school districts waste money and so on.

On the other hand, Randi Weingarten, president of American Federation of Teachers (AFT), in an article in the New York Times (April 15, 2009) is quoted as saying “They’re trying to do reform with teachers, not to them.”

In California, however, the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) demonstrated at a school board meeting mid-April 2009, after 6000 teachers had been sent preliminary layoff warnings (pink slips).  The board members wanted to split the stimulus money over two years.  Only lay off 3000 school personnel next year?  How does that make sense?

And, on the NBC Nightly News, May 5, 2009, a short news clip outlined the problem with dividing up education stimulus funds among states based on existing government demographic formulas so that, for instance, Utah, which needs substantial additional funds, gets far less than Wyoming, which has a huge education budget already and spends much more ‘per pupil.’

It seems “how” changes are going to be designed and implemented bedevils the mind.

What have you heard in your state?